What Happened in the ICE Detention Center in GA, is not the first forced sterilization in American history.

Recently on the news, it is said that there is a whistleblower saying 3 women received unnecessary hysterectomies at an ICE detention center in Georgia which MSNBC made sure to say that it’s run by a private company (LeSalle Corrections). I heard a couple of versions. They were apparently told they were to receive hysterectomies and had no say in it, and 1 woman apparently had cancer so she needed a hysterectomy but after she got out was told by another doctor that she never had it? In any case, whatever the stories are, these women had their natural rights violated and this wouldn’t be the first time throughout history.
Brief history of forced sterilization:
(Copied and pasted from eugenicsarchive .ca)

“Although Indiana was the first state in the United States to pass a eugenic sterilization law in 1907, two states had introduced such laws earlier. In 1897, Michigan introduced a compulsory sterilization bill that did not pass, and in 1905 Pennsylvania passed a sterilization law that was vetoed by the state governor, and so did not come into effect as law. Over 30 states eventually passed such legislation, with Alberta (1928) and British Columbia (1933) the only Canadian provinces to pass comparable laws.”

And of course came 1927 Supreme Court Case, Buck V Bell (I love Mr. Beat🖤)
https://youtu.be/yx0jKEJIu-c

(According to disabilityjustice. org)
“Buck V Bell upheld a 1924 Virginia statute that allowed state governments to sterilize people it considered genetically unfit. In explaining the Supreme Court’s decision supporting involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., noted:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.””

So, private company or not, it is absolutely legal to forcibly sterilize humans in the name of all that’s good for the state. No matter how many states have denounced it, passed statutes or updated them that have never actually repealed them. It wouldn’t matter if the last forced sterilization happened in 1981 (or 2020 allegedly), or that since the late 19th century over 70,000 forced sterilizations were carried out legally.

Not that it really matters to anarchists but for any constitutionalists it might matter that these laws go against the 8th and 14th amendments.
-The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
-The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws”

This is the system we live in folks. Gross, I know.

It’s not the law to wear a mask. You’re welcome.

So who else has checked out the executive orders from their state? I wrote a post the other day saying the governor’s executive order for this pandemic, isn’t a law and that’s absolutely correct. But here, I’ll post my sources.

  1. As it turns out the one from NY, which is where I live, is chalk full of the word “shall”. Though shall has many meanings, it is also a suggestive term. In legal documents such as an executive order, it’s meant to be suggestive, even by the supreme court.

“Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is confusing because it can also mean “may, will or must.” Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word “shall.” Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word “shall” appears in statutes, it means “may.”
Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black’s Law Dictionary wrote that “In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency … which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language.”

Those are some of the reasons why these documents compel us to use the word “must” when we mean “mandatory:”.
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/

  1. I’ll also give credit to this woman, who did all the research for how businesses can’t close down due to people not wearing a mask.
    It’s 25 minutes long, in short, no. The executive order goes along the guidelines of existing public health laws which puts it squarely in the jurisdiction of Department of Health. And they can’t fine or shut you down for regulations or laws that don’t exist in legislation yet, but they can find something else and get you for that. If you own a business, I’d listen to this.
    https://youtu.be/kYcG72rwsek
  2. 1 photo is what a governor’s executive order is, that it cannot be enforced the save as a law. And the other is what each branch of government does. The executive branch cannot create laws not even during a national emergency.
    And if you want to check that out
    Here’s the PDF
    National Emergency Powers
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjzos6lrarrAhWjneAKHUd_CTkQFjAEegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw2TBasxUUVzv7G04Jcy3712

https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/authority-governor-issue-executive-order-having-force-and-effect-law#:~:text=An%20executive%20order%20may%20be,set%20out%20in%20the%20order
In this photo in the guest section which clearly means IF digital changing cannot be maintained, you “shall” be required to wear a mask.

Anarchism History and Literature: Emma Goldman

If anyone doesn’t know, Emma Goldman is the reason why I am proud to call myself an anarchist. I’d already been a few years into my research and found a test from Political Compass. I took it and the the chart showed all these famous people in history, Emma Goldman being on the far left. At the time I considered myself a libertarian and the dot signifying where I belonged was hanging off the line of the chart and in Emma Goldman’s throat. I didn’t even know who she was.
And if you don’t then today’s book and video of the day can help with that. One thing I did recently notice, is that she’s popular not just in anarchist circles, but feminist and left liberal groups as well.

Book of the day:

https://youtu.be/EAWRQIf5dEw

Video of the Day:

Continue reading “Anarchism History and Literature: Emma Goldman”

Short Essay

In the realm of Anarchism many have come up with several ideas for living in a stateless existence. There are several flavors or schools of thought for if there was just one, that would defeat the whole purpose of the freedom we fight for. It appears as shown throughout history that most anarchists disagree with one another, all of which at the core winds up leading to property. Not just any type of property but private property. Specifically and more currently, you can see these types of arguments are taken place with Anarchist Capitalists (Ancaps) and Anarchist Communists (Ancoms) right here in social media. They disagree on what seems like everything and that’s ok. It’s not necessary to agree on everything or anything at all. It’s almost like one side is insistent on rehearsed one liners that they know is going to trigger the other, while the other gets so emotional that one gets annoyed and thus neither side actually had a productive argument. This, of course, is the trademark of newer Ancaps and Ancoms.  So let’s make it clear.
(This is pretty elementary, but just for shits and giggles)
What is Private Property?
Places that you own and use and create your means of production to be sold off, such as factories, businesses and can even be apartment buildings or houses for rent.

What is Personal Property?
Something you own and intend to use for yourself, such as your house that you live in, toothbrush, sun glasses, couch, TV…etc.

Contrary to popular belief, neither group is against personal property. Just as an example, Ancaps may argue that Ancoms want their toothbrushes because the only way to have 1 is through use of private property, suggesting Ancoms must be against personal property. Ancoms might argue that Ancaps want control over everything by means of extortion and therefore will steal your toothbrush and resell it for profit so Ancaps must be against personal property too. Actually… NO ONE WANTS YOUR NASTY TOOTHBRUSH! 藍 (statists might though, just saying).

Typically these discussions get out of hand and seem to stray from the reason why we call ourselves anarchists in the first place, and that is the state is our enemy. Understandably The State has been the very reason why different groups are created. Because where there is corruption and injustice many will stand up against it. Every action The State has taken to create such injustices through means of doctrine, coercion and violence, and yet the “free people” will blame each other. Capitalism isn’t the same as the corporatism we’ve always had and communism isn’t the dictatorship of the proletariat that it’s history has always repeated.

Anarchists are not violent nor coercive. With that said, if you call yourself an Anarchist or Anarcho hyphen anything but suggest otherwise, you’re not worthy of the name and what it stands for.
It doesn’t matter what flavor or school of thought you are, you can debate which is right or wrong all day. In the end, in a stateless and voluntary society you’re free to choose. If all is voluntary as it should be, then who will coerce anyone to into institutions and doctrines? If everyone is free minded who will be forced to do anything they don’t want to do? Everyone should be able to have what they want and need without hindrance of one another.
Voluntary is a key word and every school of thought can compliment each other really well if done in such a fashion. Or else you’re just looking at the rebuilding of State structure. Violence is for statists so let’s keep it that way. That’s what sets us apart from them after all.

“Liberty is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says eternally that only we can.”
– Karl Hess

Marriage is Slavery

I made a comment on a post and it inspired me to make a post.

MARRIAGE
Why is marriage slavery?
Multiple reasons really.

  1. the whole history of marriage was to force 2 people together for money exchange between families especially in the times of monarchy in Europe. All marriages had to be approved by the king. In its history men have always claimed the women as if they were their property, especially when it came to uniting 2 families for the sake of wealth. And that’s not to mention the business of buying people as slaves to work on their land. It’s no better, as both examples are means to use human beings as property/capital that belongs to another and not themselves. Hence, slavery.
  2. In middle eastern and Indian cultures middle aged men are entitled to marry little girls against their will. Again, because 2 families are uniting for the sake of wealth. Young girls are forced to drop out of school (if they go to school) to marry and obey their husbands who will make endless promises before the details are worked out between the 2 families. And those promises are broken once the marriage ceremony is over. The women in those cultures, then, are often treated as second class citizens and to be subservient to their husbands for the rest of their lives.
  3. For people here in America, it was no different in our earliest history from the time we invaded to present times. The State itself is a slave master. Just look up DC organic act of 1871. Here, the citizens are the property of the State. (As in you’re the capital). Politicians back then found another way to legally bind everyone to their will and property which is no better than marriage or traditional slavery. And just because culture and society seems to change to seem fair, at its underlying core, is the same old system of corruption.
    Today, just because it seems like both parties agree by choice, the social norm gives the illusion that you have to get married. They paint a pretty picture for marketing purposes, doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re not allowed to get married unless you have a license and it must be recognized in the eyes of the State or it is “invalid”.
    And let’s not pretend that people these days get married for love, it’s because they want the inheritance or these the State claims all, or unless there’s a written will, then the State claims a percentage. And after you spend all that money on a worthless junk of a ring, and engagement party, and bridal shower, AND wedding… you’re then forced to pay higher insurance and taxes.
    Lastly we all see the justice of men, nonfathers and fathers alike in a bad divorce. Right they don’t get any women take all most of the time. And try mentioning a prenup before marriage! (Lol) The State makes a lot of money on those cases of divorce. And just look at Utah with multiple wives, not all the women are willing to enter that marriage. And don’t get me started on how the justice system treats spousal abuse. More often than not it works out for the abuser.
    My point is you can be in love all you want no one should ever make you swear your allegiance to prove it. And if you’re going to do it, make sure you’re doing it for you when you’re ready and not because of pressure. If you want to, it should be able to be done in a private manner to no business of the State.

One of the main influences on this, to show how long this idea as existed, is Emma Goldman. She has had every influence on me and in fact every reason why I am proud to call myself an Anarchist. None other has so eloquently been able to express and convey this thought more, than in her essay “Marriage and Love”. I will leave this video here.

I’ve been with my man, for almost 8 years, we have 2 beautiful kids together. We have no need to get married, regardless of family pressure for the draconian traditions of “if you have kids you must get married” and if you don’t it’s “blasphemy”. John and I are interdependent of one another, we’re loyal, have respect and trust each other and probably have one of the most honest and truthful relationships I’ve ever been in. We worked hard for that and didn’t need a marriage for it, nor do we plan on ever getting married. If you choose to get married that’s your choice. Love has seldom to do with it.

🖤~~~~ Nessa Nyx~~~~🖤