Rad Geek People’s Daily

Here’s the rules.

1. Pick a quote of one or more paragraphs from something you’ve read, in print, over the course of the past week. (It should be something you’ve actually read, and not something that you’ve read a page of just in order to be able to post your favorite quote.)

2. Avoid commentary above and beyond a couple sentences, more as context-setting or a sort of caption for the text than as a discussion.

3. Quoting a passage doesn’t entail endorsement of what’s said in it. You may agree or you may not. Whether you do isn’t really the point of the exercise anyway.

Here’s the quote. This is from my class readings, Herodotus (c. 449 BCE), The Histories (trans. G.C. Macaulay and Donald Lateiner); I read it during one of my study jags over at The Coffee Cat. It’s Herodotus’s version of the end of the life of Cyrus the Great, the first King of Kings of the Persian Empire. At this time in his life, Cyrus had gained supreme power over the Persians, taken power over the old Median Empire, and set out on decades of large-scale conquest, subjugating nearly all of the peoples in Asia Minor, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. He then went with his army to the river Aras, in the hopes of expanding his conquest onto the Central Asian plains.

201. When [Babylon] also had been subdued by Cyrus, he desired to bring the Massagetai into subjection to himself. This nation is reputed to be both great and warlike, and to dwell towards the East and the sunrise, beyond the river Araxes and over against the Issedonians. Some say that this nation is of the Scythian race.

. . . 205. Now the ruler of the Massagetai was a woman, who was queen after the death of her husband, and her name was Tomyris. To her Cyrus sent and wooed her, pretending that he desired to have her for his wife. Tomyris, understanding that he was wooing not herself but rather the kingdom of the Massagetai, rejected his approaches. Cyrus after this, as he made no progress by craft, marched to the Araxes and campaigned openly against the Massagetai, forming bridges of boats over the river for his army to cross, and building towers upon the vessels which gave them safe passage across the river.

[. . . The captive king Croesus advised Cyrus to leave behind part of his army, along with preparations for a feast with strong wine, as a snare for the Massagetai warriors, who had no experience with Persian drinks.]

211. . . . After this when Cyrus and the sound part of the army of the Persians had marched back to the Araxes, and those unfit for fighting had been left behind, then one-third of the army of the Massagetai attacked and proceeded to kill, not without resistance, those whom the army of Cyrus had left behind. Seeing the feast that was set forth, when they had overcome their enemies they lay down and feasted, and being satiated with food and wine they went to sleep. Then the Persians came upon them and slew many of them, and took alive many more even than they slew, and among these the son of the queen Tomyris, who was leading the army of the Massagetai; and his name was Sparagapises.

212. She then, when she heard that which had come to pass with the army and also the things concerning her son, sent a herald to Cyrus and said: Cyrus, insatiable of blood, do not celebrate too much what has come to pass, namely because with that fruit of the vine, with which you fill yourselves and become so mad that as the wine descends into your bodies, wicked words float up upon its stream,—because setting a snare, I say, with such a drug as this you overcame my son and not by valor in fight. Now therefore hear this my word, giving you good advice:—Restore to me my son and depart from this land without penalty, triumphant over a third part of the army of the Massagetai. If you shall not do so, I swear to you by the Sun, who is lord of the Massagetai, that surely I will give you your fill of blood, blood-thirsty though you are.

213. These words were reported to him, but Cyrus disregarded them; and the son of the queen Tomyris, Sparagapises, when he sobered up and he realized his plight, entreated Cyrus that he might be loosed from his chains and gained his request. So soon as his hands were free, he put himself to death. 214. He then ended his life in this manner; but Tomyris, as Cyrus did not listen to her, gathered together all her power and joined battle with Cyrus. This battle I judge to have been the fiercest of all the battles fought by Barbarians,^[1] and I am informed that it happened thus:—first, it is said, they stood apart and shot at one another, and afterwards when their arrows were all shot away, they fell upon one another and engaged in close combat with their spears and daggers; and so they continued their fight with one another for a long time, and neither side would flee; but at last the Massagetai got the better in the fight. The greater part of the Persian army was destroyed there upon the spot, and Cyrus himself died there, after he had reigned twenty-nine years. Then Tomyris filled a skin with human blood and had search made among the Persian dead for the corpse of Cyrus. When she found it, she let his head down into the skin and doing outrage to the corpse she said this over it: Though I yet live and have overcome you in fight, nevertheless you have destroyed me by taking my son with craft. I nevertheless according to my threat will give you your fill of blood. There are many tales told about the end of Cyrus, but this one is to my mind the most worthy of belief.

— Herodotus (c. 449 BCE), The Histories, Book I §§ 212-213. (Trans. G.C. Macaulay and Donald Lateiner.)

1. ^[1] [Sic. By Barbarians, Herodotus simply means nations that do not speak Greek. —CJ] ↩

It’s maddening to reflect that literally every single president of my lifetime has been involved in a war in Iraq.^[1] For more than 20 years of my life, U.S. presidents have been continuously at war against Iraq in some way or another. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, every one of them, started a new assault on Iraq at some point in their presidency, whether in the form of cruise missile strikes and aerial bombing, or lethal sanctions, or for the third time now a ground invasion. The only president of my lifetime who did not start a new war against Iraq was Ronald Reagan; and that’s only because he was too busy helping the Iraqi government get chemical weapons so they could fight a bloody proxy war for him against Iran.

The U.S. government’s two decades of continuous war and blockades in Iraq has killed over a million people, most of them civilians and children, in the name of national policy. The details of the policies always shift, every enemy turns out to be unique in their brutality, but the means of enacting them always remain the same: more missiles, more bombs, more soldiers, and more dead children in Iraq. And now the president speaks of humanitarian missions.

Yesterday night, President Obama gave a speech announcing that he would escalate the U.S.’s third war against Iraq, and that he would widen the war into Syria as well. I can’t say that the speech is extraordinarily belligerent; but only because what is outrageous in the speech is so ordinary, after all these years so deeply familiar with year after year of war in Iraq. The language is as shopworn as it is mendacious. In his speech, the President said:

. . . Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. . . . And our own safety — our own security — depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for — timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

— Barack Obama, remarks on ISIL/ISIS and war on Syria and Iraq, 10 September 2014

These words — these exact words, without any change, could have been uttered by George W. Bush. They sound like him, full of hunting down terrorists and If you threaten America…. They could have been spoken, just as they are, by William Jefferson Clinton. They read exactly like every war speech that George H. W. Bush ever gave.

The dates and the names change, but the war rhetoric is always the same. Every President is a war President, and in war, every President talks in the same voice, from the same mouth, with the same lies, for the same ultimate purpose: to legitimize politically-organized mass murder. If you elect a liberal President who marched against the Vietnam War, what you’ll get in the end is a President. If you elect a humble foreign policy conservative, then he will govern as a President anyway. If you elect a Progressive President, then the fact that he is President will always turn out to be far more relevant than the fact that he is a Progressive. Electing presidents or changing political parties will never end war: No matter who you voted for, the winner always becomes the Government.

For war is essentially the health of the State.

See also.

• GT 2013-03-19: The Same Government
• GT 2009-01-25: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
• GT 2008-05-13: Gosh that’s tough
• GT 2008-03-17: March 17, 2003, 8:01pm EST
• GT 2007-05-13: Cry havoc! and let slip the pronouns of war…
• GT 2006-12-21: In ten words or fewer (personal pronouns edition): George W. Bush on the next year of the Iraq War

1. ^[1] I was born in 1981. ↩

This week in coding: the ethos of Intellectual Property forces smart people to waste an incredible amount of time and effort dealing with trivial, unproductive bullshit.

Of course, this is a shameful move from Barack Obama. Immigrants’ lives and families are being sacrificed, yet again, over and over and again, to opportunism and to crass political calculation. The careers of Democratic politicians are not more important than people’s lives and livelihoods. What makes it worse is that this move is as completely predictable as it is morally grotesque.

Progressive electoral politics is like building a vast, extraordinarily expensive, Rouge River-scale machine plant to build cars. Then, after the ribbon is cut, the plant opens to great fanfare, billions of dollars are spent, and a couple of go-karts are rolled off the line as a test, the manager up tells you that there won’t be any more cars for the time being — because all the wear and tear on the machines would destroy their ability to make more cars, some day in the future. So until then you’ll have to wait. All the while the machine whirs along, drawing more power and costing more money all the time, but no more cars ever come off the line, because every time there might have been some output, it was sacrificed to make sure that the machine itself would keep idling smoothly. But it is so perfectly polished.

VRG Reader: Markets Not Capitalism

• Charles Johnson and Gary Chartier (eds.), Markets Not Capitalism, 1st ed. (Minor Compositions: 2011) will be the source for most of the readings in our VRG. You can obtain a copy directly from the publishers, or from the usual online bookstores. You can also read it online if you don’t mind giant PDF blobs.

In addition to the readings from Markets Not Capitalism, there will be a number of additional primary and supplementary readings that we will discuss to give more in-depth treatments to particular topics and offer additional context. Readings that aren’t in Markets Not Capitalism will be made available online. Here are links to the additional readings throughout the VRG.

Session 3: A Question of Ownership.

• Murray N. Rothbard (1969), Massacre at People’s Park, in The Libertarian Forum I.VI (June 15, 1969). 1. (PDF at Mises.org)

Session 4: A Question of Knowledge.

• F.A. Hayek (1945), The Use of Knowledge in Society in American Economic Review XXXV.4 (Sep. 1945). 519-30. (HTML at EconLib).

• Nathan Goodman (2013), The Knowledge Problem of Privilege, at Liberty Minded (July 29, 2013)

Session 5: A Question of Scale.

• Read Coase^[1] (1937), The Nature of the Firm, from Economica N.S. 4.16 (Nov. 1937). 386-405.

Session 6: A Question of Identity.

• Dyer D. Lum (1890), Introduction and Fundamental Principles from The Economics of Anarchy: A Study of the Industrial Type (HTML at praxeology.net)

• Benj. R. Tucker (various/1897), selections from Instead of a Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (HTML at fair-use.org):

  • Relation of the State to the Individual (1890). 21-29.
  • Our Purpose (1881). 30-31.
  • Who Is The Somebody? (1881). 177-178.
  • The Sin of Herbert Spencer (1884). 370-371
  • Rights and Duties Under Anarchy (1887) 58-60.
  • Should Labor Be Paid or Not? (1888). 403-404
  • Armies that Overlap (1890). 363-365.

Session 7: A Question of Activism.

• Sharon Presley & Lynn Kinsky (1976), Government is Women’s Enemy, Association of Libertarian Feminists Discussion Paper (HTML at alf.org)

• Lucinda Cisler (1970), Abortion Law Repeal (Sort Of): A Warning to Women, in Notes from the Second Year. (eBook at Duke University Libraries. Alternative HTML version at fair-use.org)

• Charles Johnson (2011). Women and the Invisible Fist: How Violence Against Women Enforces the Unwritten Law of Patriarchy. There are several drafts of this paper, prepared for different audiences. I recommend reading the December 2010/March 2011 Molinari Society version (2010.1217-2), which is about 20pp in length and was prepared for audiences already somewhat familiar with libertarian writing.

• Ellen Willis (1970). Women and the Myth of Consumerism, in Ramparts (June 1970). 13-16. (PDF at unz.org. Alternative HTML version at fair-use.org.)

• Betsy Brown (2000). A Radical Dyke Experiment for the Next Century: 5 Things to work for Instead of Same-Sex Marriage, from off our backs 30.1 (January 2000). 24.

Session 8: A Question of Ethos

• Karl Hess (1969). The Death of Politics, from Playboy (March 1969). (HTML at fare.tunes.org)

• Jason Lee Byas (2014). Toward an Anarchy of Production (Part I) from The New Leveller 1.1 and Toward an Anarchy of Production (Part II) from The New Leveller 1.2. (HTML at s4ss.org)

• Emma Goldman (1910). Minorities versus Majorities, in Anarchism and Other Essays (1910/1917). (HTML at Berkeley Digital Library: The Emma Goldman Papers)

1. ^[1] lol ↩