If there is one fact our collective history clearly reveals it is that large, centralized nation-states are the worlds most terrifying institutions. The 20th century alone is testament to this. The rise of fascism brought a premature end to nearly 100 million lives. The rise of the Bolsheviks tells a tale of an increasingly oppressive regime addicted to power. State capitalism and the rise of neo-liberal economics in the west are equally disastrous, responsible for a century of perpetual warfare.

Public intellectual Randolph Bourne once wrote, “war is the health of the state.” In the last century the machines of war reached frightening heights of power. The production of nuclear weapons can end all life as we know it. States may cause the greatest extinction in all of Earth’s history. This — the end of our species and countless others — is a real and looming threat.

The state is a system of power and domination. Such a monopoly serves to institutionalize the creeds of racism, sexism, class division, protectionism, biocentrism and more. This is true even in the most “democratic” of nations, including the United States. Such archism deserves abolition. The state is damned.

Yet, here in the fog, there too exists our beautiful struggle.

There is a great tradition in human history: Liberation. We long to be free. Human action continues to prove that with agency we can do great things for one another. We continue to labor, create, preserve and exercise goodwill.

Our inclined labor will produce a world where the children of humanity will live unbound by chains, where no fire or whip will meet their flesh. There will be no need to pledge allegiance to a nation, but all the reason to imagine a world of real and lasting peace. Not a world of dreamers, but a world of contracts, liberated economics and the splendor of the human condition. The peace of common interest, wildness and mutualism.

We must remember this. We must always remember those who risked and sometimes lost their lives and freedom for such an order. We must remember to love those who raised liberty’s hammer. Those who broke down the walls that caged us. We must remember so light will ever conquer darkness — so liberty will no longer be a simple flame, but a piercing, radiant torch.

We will be free. We will face the world without fear. We will stand together and howl into the face of those who wish to reign over us. We will ever challenge their rule. We will continue our embrace of liberty. Global movements have ignited. Join hands, unite the riot — coordinate and cultivate the free society. As we enter the new year, breath deep, let the winter air fill your lungs. Know that you are an animal, that you are alive and demand your freedom. Damn those who wish to deny you. Stare into the dark night and howl. Howl!

The US Department of Defense is the nation’s single largest consumer of fossil fuels. From arms production to the grand machines of war, the military emits more greenhouse gas than any other state institution. War also wrecks natural ecosystems. Ongoing interventions have damaged forests and wetlands across the Middle East. According to CostOfWar.org, Afghanistan has lost 38% of total forested area to illegal logging. This deforestation is associated with warlords who rise to power from the ashes of military campaigns that continually destabilize the region. This plunder eliminates beneficial ecosystem services to surrounding populations and gives rise to further conflict and violence as people are left with depleted resources. Forest loss also reduces the amount of available habitat for a number of species, including avian communities, currently experiencing a precipitous population decline — a dangerous precedent in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

The state organism is continually exalted by those in positions of power as the only legitimate mechanism of social organization. We are told only the state can ensure peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex and ever fragile world. But given the role of the nation-state in the world, as an economic and military power, it is time to acknowledge the organism is a global threat to peace, security, liberty and the environment.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

There is much discussion over the environmental implications of the BP disaster. Rightly so, the blowout holds rank among the worst industrial disasters in environmental history. However, there is little discussion on how such disasters, all across the globe, continue to occur. In the wake of such disasters, there appears to be a rift between the state and big capital. The public often looks to regulators for habitat protection, biodiversity conservation and to levy punishment on the corporate sector. Industrial disasters do create conflict between these institutions, but it is latent. The state-corporate apparatus has ensured big industry will maintain a lock on the energy market. Because of this, the national economy is dependent on large corporate institutions and the conflict is short-lived. The real story is how big capital and state power produce quiescence and uncertainty within the public arena during and after disasters.

What happened in the Gulf is another unfortunate portrayal of glaring inequality. Most coastal communities in the deep south, especially in Louisiana, exhibit a domination of an elite over the non-elite. Local markets are dependent on healthy coastal ecosystems for resource (fisheries) harvesting and beneficial ecosystem services such as flood mitigation, water purification, storm buffering and more. Big oil maintains a strong presence in coastal communities as well, however, creating numerous problems for locals. From “Cancer Alley” to coastal erosion via dredging, big oil wrecks local economies.

So where’s the rebellion? Why is it that such social deprivation and threats to public/environmental health have failed to yield democratic participation? Perhaps it is the existence of a positive feedback loop between power, capital and quiescence.

Quiescence is often used to portray the legitimacy of systems of power and domination. The state seeks social and economic stability and utilizes power to ensure such stability. Because of this, systems of power and domination are maintained not because of their legitimacy, but because of quiescence itself. This is the very nature of power: Maintain the existing order by further centralization. Sociologist John Gaventa, in his book Power and Powerlessness, discusses this phenomenon:

Power is exercised not just upon participants within the decision-making process but also towards the exclusion of certain participants and issues altogether… The most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the first place.

In regards to natural disasters, the prevention of conflict is achieved by the production of uncertainty. This is important, because it is in discourse over ones own socio-economic environment that the true character of a power system is revealed. Anthropologist and disaster expert Gregory Button, in his book Disaster Culture, notes we live in a highly professionalized culture where public debate is pushed aside by privileged arguments. Button writes:

Lay questions, objections and attempts to resolve uncertainty are often dismissed as uninformed, lacking in scientific vigor, irrational, and at times, almost hysteric. One woman whose life had been changed by the TVA ash spill recalled an exchange with a TVA official who avoided answering her questions and dismissed her reasoning. In response, she said, “Why do you treat us as stupid, why do you reject our arguments while upholding yours as the only reasonable ones?” This frustration typifies the kind of rejection and frustration many disaster victims suffer in contesting official versions of reality.

The tools of uncertainty manufacture consent. From disasters such as the TVA ash spill, the BP Horizon incident, or any industrial disaster, the public arena is dismissed while government/industry scientists, state agencies and the corporate sector dominate the discussion. This allows systems of power and domination, as explained by Button, to both define and control the distribution and interpretation of knowledge, while community members are made to feel as if they are arbitrators of uncertainty. Furthermore, Sociologist Max Weber notes that power systems wish to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping knowledge and intention a secret. This allows the elite to hide knowledge and keep their actions protected from criticism. The control of the discussion governs what is understood about disasters — manufactured uncertainty produces quiescence.

As for the BP Horizon blowout, the facts and uncertainties surrounding the disaster reflect these methods. The actual size of the spill is still unknown and until the PNAS publication we did not know the fate of the sequestered crude. The ecological impact of the spill, especially on rare species, such as migratory sea turtles, is now extended to the ocean dwelling habitat. If public discourse of the study ensues, however, some BP spokesperson will talk about how large spills like this are uncommon or pull out the big guns and call the spill “unprecedented.” There will be an ad campaign managed by BP that will discuss all the money and all the good they have done in the wake of the spill. The Environmental Protection Agency will boast a record of strict oversight. Even though the oil was thought to be in the deep ocean, the public will be ensured, by both state and corporate bureaucrats, that environmental contamination will be mitigated and public health will be protected. The same old song and dance that has occurred for the last four years, even though locals have continuously raised concerns over the official narrative. Of course, all of this ignores that oil spills are a very common occurrence and each raise public and environmental health concerns in their own right. Nevertheless, quiescence will remain because of the production of uncertainty.

There is much discussion in political circles, libertarian and otherwise, over the rise of freed markets and alternatives to fossil fuels. These are good discussions to have, and they are important to thrust into the public arena. It is important to keep the market as liberated as possible — this allows new technology and alternative institutions to develop. It is important to remember that recent shifts to adaptive governance and collaborative models for resource use/extraction are an option for local communities. There is much to be said about decentralization these days, and this is a good thing. It reminds us that social power is still in the fight, chipping away at systems of power and domination. It is equally important to know how entrenched authority manufactures consent and works to suppress social progress. On the road to the decentralized society we must understand power and its hurdles to transition.

Social power is the rebellion: it will lead to the end of uncertainty and thus the end of quiescence.

La guerra non è compatibile con la sostenibilità. Per affrontare seriamente il cambiamento antropogenico occorre la pace.

Gli Stati Uniti sono in uno stato di guerra permanente. Il nuovo attacco dell’amministrazione Obama contro Isis ne è una prova ulteriore. Nessuna novità. Appena un anno fa alti rappresentanti dell’amministrazione dicevano al senato che esiste un “ampio consenso” sulla necessità di estendere le operazioni militari in Medio Oriente. Un altro decennio di guerra, forse due, in “forma illimitata”. E a quel punto gli Stati Uniti sarebbero a metà strada nella guerra al terrore globale. Così si diceva prima che l’Isis diventasse argomento da salotto.

Questo stato di guerra è responsabile del massacro di innocenti, dell’inasprimento del terrore e della distruzione; e tutto mentre si propaganda l’azione sul clima. Una cosa è certa: sul clima lo stato non sta andando a “battere un colpo”.

Il dipartimento americano della difesa è da solo il più grande consumatore nazionale di combustibili fossili. Dalla produzione di armi alle grandi macchine da guerra, le forze armate emettono più gas serra di ogni altra istituzione. Aggiungeteci la distruzione dell’ecosistema naturale portata dalla guerra. Gli attuali interventi hanno danneggiato il patrimonio forestale e lagunare in tutto il Medio Oriente. Secondo CostOfWar.org, l’Afganistan ha perso il 38% delle aree boschive a causa del taglio illegale. Questa deforestazione è legata ai signori della guerra che salgono al potere sulle ceneri delle campagne militari che continuano a destabilizzare la regione. Questo saccheggio elimina quei benefici che l’ecosistema dà alle popolazioni del luogo, generando scarsità di risorse che a sua volta fa nascere ulteriori conflitti e violenze. La riduzione della superficie boschiva, inoltre, restringe l’habitat di un gran numero di specie, compresi i volatili che attualmente subiscono un forte declino; un precedente pericoloso nel mezzo della sesta estinzione di massa.

Chi sta al potere esalta continuamente lo stato come unico sistema in grado di organizzare legittimamente la società. Ci dicono che solo lo stato può assicurare pace e sostenibilità in un mondo sempre più complesso e fragile. Dato il ruolo dello stato nazione come forza economica e militare, è ormai tempo di riconoscere la sua natura di minaccia mondiale alla pace, la sicurezza, la libertà e l’ambiente.

Lo stato non è in grado di agire sul clima. Lo stato nazione funziona come un essere razionale, mira al proprio interesse. Cerca di espandere il proprio potere, per lo più sfruttando le risorse naturali. Esiste un conflitto di interessi all’interno di uno stato: quello che ha più territorio è anche quello che ha più risorse disponibili al consumo. Ecco perché la guerra (che sia militare o economica) rappresenta il benessere dello stato: perché garantisce il monopolio su un territorio, e dunque sulle sue risorse.

Tutto questo mentre da 300 a 400 mila persone marciavano davanti alle Nazioni Unite e in tutto il mondo per chiedere protezione per l’ambiente. Il progresso inizia per strada, ma un vero cambiamento si può avere solo con con un’attività ambientalista quotidiana a livello di vicinato. Questo potere sociale può rendere inservibile lo stato con tutta la sua autorità illegittima. Non limitatevi a darvi una mossa. Marciate sulle ceneri del potere.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

War is incompatible with sustainability. Serious engagement of anthropogenic change demands peace.

The United States is a permanent wartime state. The Obama administration’s new military engagement with ISIS is yet another testament to the fact. This should be no surprise. Just over a year ago senior administration officials told the US Senate there exists a “broad consensus” that military operations in the Middle East are to be extended, in their “limitless form,” for at least another decade, possibly two, before adding the United States has reached only the midpoint in its global war on terror.  This was before ISIS became a topic of dinner table discussion.

This wartime state is responsible for the mass slaughter of innocents, exacerbation of global terror and property destruction — all while advancing anthropogenic climate change. Rest assured, the state will not be “going to bat” on climate.

The US Department of Defense is the nation’s single largest consumer of fossil fuels. From arms production to the grand machines of war, the military emits more greenhouse gas than any other state institution. War also wrecks natural ecosystems. Ongoing interventions have damaged forests and wetlands across the Middle East. According to CostOfWar.org, Afghanistan has lost 38% of total forested area to illegal logging. This deforestation is associated with warlords who rise to power from the ashes of military campaigns that continually destabilize the region. This plunder eliminates beneficial ecosystem services to surrounding populations and gives rise to further conflict and violence as people are left with depleted resources. Forest loss also reduces the amount of available habitat for a number of species, including avian communities, currently experiencing a precipitous population decline — a dangerous precedent in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

The state organism is continually exalted by those in positions of power as the only legitimate mechanism of social organization. We are told only the state can ensure peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex and ever fragile world. But given the role of the nation-state in the world, as an economic and military power, it is time to acknowledge the organism is a global threat to peace, security, liberty and the environment.

States will not act on climate. Nation-states work as rational actors, advancing their own self interests. They seek the expansion their power, largely through the exploitation of natural resources. There is an inherent conflict of interest among states: The state with the most territory has the most resources for consumption. This is why war (be it military or economic) is the health of the state — it provides a monopoly over a territory and thus resources.

All of this, as 300 to 400 thousand people marched outside of the United Nations, and around the globe, to urge environmental protection. Progress starts in the streets, but true change requires everyday neighborhood environmentalism. Social power can render the state, and all of its illegitimate authority, useless. Don’t just step up to the plate. Stand on the ashes of power.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Azione sul Clima: Sulle Ceneri del Potere.

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival … It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

Of course, Adams was correct. There are 4th of July celebrations all across the country — fully equipped with the activities mentioned in his letter plus tons of food and fireworks. Today, however, there is an urgent need for collective reflection on the all too important idea behind the holiday — liberty — and its unique history in the country.

A society rooted in liberty would be defined simply as (to borrow from Merriam Webster) one “free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior or political views.” We in the United States enjoy degrees of freedom, but said freedom is not absolute. Furthermore, there currently exist aggressive barriers to achieving a free society (such as structural poverty and racism to name only a couple) and such barriers are institutionalized, protected and upheld by state power.

Social power, however, works in opposition to state power. Throughout our collective history, liberty has been achieved by people either working around power structures or directly engaging them, forcing change. Liberty is not the product of legislation, but the sum of human action. It is important to remember that patriotism is not allegiance to government or obedience to law, but rather defending and advocating moral positions in spite of the power structure.

There is something classically American about questioning authority and having distrust of large centralized governments. This tradition is experiencing a needed resurgence as of late, and along with it, so too are libertarian politics.

There are many libertarian “schools,” but in the mid-nineteenth century, a vibrant American school, known as individualist anarchism, existed with other varieties. This tradition is gaining popularity again today in the form of market anarchism. Independent scholar Kevin Carson, in his landmark book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, describes this philosophy as free market anti-capitalism. Carson writes:

The classical individualist anarchism of Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner was both a socialist movement and a subcurrent of classical liberalism … Thus, individualist anarchism was an alternative both to the increasing statism of the mainstream socialist movement, and to a classical liberal movement that was moving toward a mere apologetic for the power of big business.

This tradition resists domination, violence and privilege because these societal attributes are violations of liberty and human dignity. The idea embraces markets that are crafted by the spontaneous order of inclined labor and holds that society can be organized around voluntary interactions. Anarchism is the belief that human beings are fundamentally good so as we pursue happiness in absolute liberty, our natural instincts for altruism and cooperation will produce a free and prosperous society. These ideas are self-evident and as American as apple pie. On this Independence Day light your bonfires, celebrate liberty and further embrace American anarchism.

News is coming out of Kansas on the topic as well. Just this week Kansas legislators, citing religious liberty, voted to give legal protection to businesses who refuse service to the LGBTQ community. Objectors note that this means government is charged with protecting discriminatory behavior.

The same trend is visible in Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Indiana too. Arguments claim the social conservative worldview is better for families and children — thus same-sex marriage should be banned. A voice of dissent, Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is quoted saying “the state cannot exclude any group of people from a fundamental right based on religious views held by some.”

Taxpayer dollars at work — political arguments summed up simply as “should they support or reject this bill in the capitol.” That’s the fundamental problem with political discourse. Rhetoric is stuck in the vertical.

May I propose the ethic of liberty? In liberty social power is greater than state power. Instead of looking to the vertical structure of governance, may we instead look horizontally to one another in the market — the true public arena.

In the market we labor to exchange goods and services, develop federations, create institutions and progress our societies. The market is the ultimate commons. The freed market is liberated of power structures that are hurdles to democracy.

There’s no need for a law to protect or prohibit freedom of association. Big Government conservatives use the rhetoric of “religious liberty,” but advocate a society that is anything but liberated. If a religious or civil group wishes to honor a relationship among consenting individuals then, in liberty, so be it. The use of courts block such progress – it is nothing but a tactic to marginalize people in society.

I do not advocate (but am sympathetic to) the use of courts to combat such aggression. I do not begrudge property rights or voluntary transactions — I am a proponent of them. I am also a proponent of sit-ins, boycotts and mutual exchange. The latter will run regressive business practices out of the market. The market mechanism allows for such progress while the state mechanism burdens and often halts social change. Social movements are born in opposition to state power — hence Big Government conservatives and their lust for the power structure.

History can be viewed as a race between state power and social power. It is time to put the commons back in charge. The individual labor of human beings can build society. Institutionalized power and its hurdles to progress are a dying creed — good riddance.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, A igualdade só pode ser alcançada no mercado.

When politicians can ignore the questions posed by the left and are pushed to focus almost exclusively on the right’s concerns about ‘big government’ and its unquestioning faith in deregulated markets, the result is immoderate and ultimately impractical policy. To create a real center, you need a real left.

Leaving the mis-characterization of left and right aside, the biggest flaw in his thinking is assuming that government institutions can foster good policy for the populace. The resurgent left, the resurgent right, the resurgent center — none of these will actually help people. Sure, some policy decisions may be a wee bit better than others, but long-term viability will not come from the halls of power. That experiment has failed for thousands of years.

True change will have to come from the populace. Change in the United States will function the way it does everywhere else — by sit-ins and creative labor, not  by legislative decree. Government institutions are often hurdles to democracy, progress and policy that represents the will of individuals. The power structure, contrary to what individual Americans may believe, will continue to govern with force. A centralized bureaucracy will not represent the wishes of free people. Liberty and the state will be ever at odds.

The answer lies in the free(d) market.

Markets, as they currently exist, are not free. Today state-sanctioned economic privilege exists. The market anarchist realizes this and works toward the realization of the true beauty of the market. The free market, by its very definition, must resist domination, violence and privilege because these societal attributes are violations of liberty and human dignity. Free markets, then, based on the spontaneous order of human ingenuity, are a fundamental aspect of a free, liberated society.

In 2013 we witnessed the rise of dissent. Whistleblowers became heroes, a war-weary public halted a new military conflict in the Middle East, civic sector institutions and social movements demanded protection for the environment, alternative currencies developed, new technology started to change the way we think about education, we protested police brutality, we fought for the commons and so much more. Even more, we witnessed this collective action across the globe. The market is back!

Rights do not come from governments. Throughout our collective history, liberation has been achieved by people either working around power structures or directly engaging them, forcing change. Liberation is not the product of legislation, but the sum of human action. When we turn our backs on the political and economic elite we empower free human beings to craft a liberated market. When realized, our federations, institutions and places of exchange will be the story of generations.

The real story of 2014 will be the resurgent market.

Questo è solo uno dei tanti esempi della crescente brutalità della polizia. Secondo USA Today, il comportamento della polizia è diventato sempre più violento dall’undici settembre, presumibilmente per colpa dell’abbassamento degli standard nelle scuole di polizia e di un addestramento insufficiente. Forse questo è parte del problema. Io però penso che la colpa sia della crescente mentalità da stato di polizia che si è diffusa da quando è iniziata l’infinita “guerra al terrorismo”. Considerata la militarizzazione crescente della polizia di questi ultimi dieci anni, non c’è da stupirsi se la violenza aumenta.

Ma perché cresce l’interesse del pubblico?

Anche molto prima dell’undici settembre la polizia era brutale e forniva grandi titoli ai giornali, ma non così spesso come oggi. L’interesse sempre maggiore da parte del pubblico si basa sul fatto che la violenza è in aumento? Correlazione non significa causa. Le nuove tecnologie, i media indipendenti e la vecchia buona capacità di comunicare degli uomini sono alle origini della questione. Noi siamo connessi, noi parliamo, noi controlliamo la piazza e noi diffondiamo le storie sul web. Di fronte al crescere della violenza la gente ricorre ai social media per diffondere la conoscenza e fronteggiare il potere dello stato.

Per stare in argomento: Sahar Khoshakhlagh, una delle donne sparate dalla polizia che tentava di sparare Broadnax, non beve la storia dell’uomo mentalmente instabile responsabile delle sue ferite. Secondo il suo avvocato, Mariann Wang, l’accusa dovrebbe essere spostata sugli agenti che hanno aperto il fuoco. “È un incredibilmente sfortunato uso della discrezione dell’accusa il fatto che venga accusato un uomo che non ha inferto alcuna ferita al mio cliente,” ha detto Wang. “È stata la polizia a ferire il mio cliente.”

Sono passati i tempi in cui le persone arroganti prese di mira dalla polizia erano persone che semplicemente se lo meritavano. “Si vede che ha combinato qualcosa,” è il vecchio mantra della maggioranza. Oggi noi sappiamo che gli agenti del governo sono dalla parte del torto e non esitiamo a sollevare polemiche riguardo il fatto. La tastiera è più potente degli editti di stato.

L’informatica ha connesso la popolazione come non era mai accaduto prima, ma non è la semplice esistenza della tecnologia che fa salire il dissenso di fronte agli abusi della polizia: è l’attività del pubblico e la volontà di contrastare il potere dello stato. È incredibile vedere queste piccole fiamme di libertà che spuntano non solo negli Stati Uniti, ma in tutto il mondo. Il pubblico sta mettendo in dubbio chi ha il potere e le sue ragioni. Gli individui (e la collettività) stanno acquisendo più potere che mai. Questo ha un grosso effetto sui sistemi politici; e sulla “giustizia”. Quando si arriverà ad un mondo basato sulla libertà anarchica la giustizia non sarà misurata con il metro del castigo, della forza e della violenza; si baserà invece sulla capacità di ristabilire l’ordine e sulla possibilità di disarmare chi opprime.

E allora: via le pietre degli “agenti del bene”, ben vengano le polemiche del pubblico.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

The holiday season is also a time of reflection and, for many, hope. I am curious about hope, however, and wonder if careful reflection will reveal it is time to give it up. This idea was introduced to me by the writing of Derek Jensen in his piece “Beyond Hope,” and the notion has stuck for some time now. I do not mean that we should  be pessimists — rather very much the contrary. Hope means we are waiting for someone else to make things better. Hope is passive. It is time to join our peers of past and present and be the change. Acting means we do not have to wait or hope anymore — we can build anew within the shell of the old. When we act it will then not matter who is sitting in a position of power. In the words of Howard Zinn, “it matters more who is sitting in … pushing for change.”

During the “season of peace” it is prudent to remember that human history is full of moments of compassion, love, altruism and kindness. Most of us simply long for creative labor, safe communities, healthy environments and peace. It is important to remember this. There are of course drastic divisions across religious and political boundaries today, and at these indoctrinated boundaries violence tends to erupt. The liberated human condition, however, is one that longs for peace.

The old order is one of human suppression, wealth disparity, a command and control mentality, and most abhorrent an order of war.  This order has existed because people are obedient to the rules and norms of power and influence. As we hope for a better tomorrow we allow coercive, pervasive violence. Defiance to these norms, dissent, social power and liberty all pay homage to a much higher moral law. The fact that such defiance has occurred all throughout our collective history should be celebrated. We have accomplished much in the face of such great aggression. We have built safe communities, we have worked to liberate our labor, we have built orders of solidarity. We have overcome hurdles standing in the way of liberty and democracy — we have moved forward.

Some have even taken very drastic measures to oppose war and oppression. Chelsea Manning is just a recent example that comes to mind. Many throughout human history have sacrificed their own personal liberty to call out the atrocities of war and all forms of aggression. Some have even given their lives to advance peace. We should all be very thankful for these actions – they are paramount to a free society. We need not always risk our lives and liberty, however, as dissent should be gauged by each individual. For free people have, do and will continue to change the world.

So, in the spirit of the season let us all decide to embrace peace. Let us no longer follow the whims of politicians or those who wish to command and control society. Instead may we labor to co-ordinate and cultivate the societies and communities we all wish to freely associate with. Let us labor for causes that are just and reject the notion of just wars and necessary violence. All to often power ignores what is just and enhances the very atrocities it sets out eliminate. One need not look past the history of war, especially in the past century, to see this. Let us, the collective, the individual instead labor for peace.