Blood, Power, and Freedom
November 25, 2004
10:00 p.m., MT
I have my Thanksgiving "surprise" ready.

In 2003 one of my favorite writers was a "techno-skeptic," anti-corporate, anarchist who often wrote for Strike The Root. That prolific STR contributor was Craig Russell. Craig also wrote a few exceptionally good essays for other sites. For LewRockwell.com he produced reviews of two great movies: The Godfather and Gangs of New York. Both reviews are insightful and penetrating about the themes at work in those excellent films. (Both were also included in the Culcha' section of Ender's Review.)

Toward the end of 2003 Craig stopped writing for publication. I had often included his articles in Ender's Review, even when I wasn't in complete agreement. Craig's writing was always interesting. So I noticed that he had stopped writing, but I didn't know why. When I started Endervidualism I wrote him about submitting his writing for publication at my site. I didn't get a response and wondered what had become of him.

This week I finally got an answer and a submission of Craig's new writing for publication at Endervidualism. You may not agree with his point in this his first Endervidualism essay (I had some "meat" for dinner today myself), but even if you don't agree, I think you will find it both interesting and full of insight about the State and its ways.

I did barely manage to get it done and the announcement here made before Thanksgiving is over. Happy Thanksgiving !!!

Endervidual

Replies: 7 individuals have opined

On Sunday, November 28th, Sunni said:

Hey Bob,

Hope you've checked out my wheat-free recipes, here and at Doing Freedom!. I've got some others too, but I need to perfect them before publishing 'em.

On Sunday, November 28th, charley hardman said:

tom, although i like uniformity of principle when it comes to liberty, argument is fine with me -- especially when hashing out such a confusing area as killing animals for meat. in my opinion, the backlash against vegetarians from liberty lovers has been overdone.

but no, i wouldn't have published craig's article as a one-off or debut, and there's no chance i would have touted it as a thanksgiving surprise. i thought that was cheap. if it brings people to a liberty view, it's only by freak accident and a big hurdle over the melodious nonsense that was most of the article.

as i hope you know, i write any criticism on this subject as a fan of you and your site.

On Sunday, November 28th, Endervidual said:

Where to start?

Bob, I am somewhat like you. Although I don't have celiac disease, I do have type 2 diabetes. I am not really in a good position to give up meat and cheese either, nor do I plan to do so. Perhaps asking Craig or e-mailing him would get his point of view on that. He specifically asked to have an e-mail link on the article.

I haven't because I don't really see much reason to do so for me. I suppose you and I could try subsisting on lettuces, nuts and berries (Yogi Bear was not my favorite cartoon, but I sympathized with Yogi's desire for "dietary variety". Although I have come to appreciate those foods more over the last few years, I am not willing to give up everything else.

Charley, I guess you wouldn't have published the article. I don't share Craig's viewpoint, but I did think it was an interesting one. I don't plan to stop eating meat, but perhaps we can attract more vegans and other types of vegetarians to the freedom/antistatist movement with Craig's writing on this topic. Maybe not, but why not try?

Even though I don't plan to give up meat, I do share some of Craig's opinions about "factory farms." Free range animal meat is healthier for people to eat. Game meat is healthier too. However, not that many people are exposed to these ideas and are aware that those types of meat are better for them.

Craig is not advocating coercive methods to enforce his idea, he is attempting to persuade. He is not convincing you (or me either about giving up meat or technology), but perhaps his argument will get someone who shares his belief about animals (or technology) to also entertain the idea that the state is not such a great idea.

I understand that the stream of ideas in the last paragraph is not perfectly logical (it is akin to affirming the consequent). Although I'm a big advocate of logic and reason (I was a math/philosophy double major once) I also acknowledge that not everyone is. Sometimes building rapport, which is often essential to persuasion, is not rooted in logic.

Uniformity of belief (no controversy) is not something I consider to be necessarily desirable. Maybe you do. If you do or don't, either way, that's okay with me. I don't necessarily crave agreement on every issue. However, that there be a variety of opinions on many life style options (for instance, food) seems a natural thing to me.

Cutesy? I guess cutesy is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't mean to be cutesy.

On Saturday, November 27th, Bob Wallace said:

Interesting...now what about someone like me who cannot eat gluten-containing grains because I have celiac disease? It means I have inherited genes that run back back before humanity domesticated grains some 10,000 years ago. I'm not even really made to be a hunter/gatherer--I'm made to be a hunter. That dead bloody meat is exactly what my metabolism has craved all my life. I've tried vegetarianism as an experiment, and lasted two weeks before I had to eat meat.

On Saturday, November 27th, charley hardman said:

hi, tom. i've been looking for someone to convince me that eating animals is bad. craig's article only assured me that we shouldn't accept everything that comes delivered in a liberty-praising wrapper. surprised you published it, and even more surprised at the tepid, almost cutesy defense of its publication. if you'll excuse frankness, "A little controversy isn't a bad thing" sounds uncharacteristically dodgy, and almost as illogical as the article.

fire? technology? power? the "argument" transfers so easily to almost anything else that the transferability alone belies its intended seriousness. i hope you'll track down a defense of animals that warrants more than a skim and a scoff.

see what you've done? i'm sounding like a letter-to-the-editor writer! ugh.

On Friday, November 26th, Endervidual said:

I wouldn't think so, but I can't speak for Craig. Pallas has good arguments to support "your side" of that one.

I can't say that I wholly accept the argument that eating meat always supports the state. I am also not as much a techno-skeptic as Craig. However, I find Craig's writing to be exceptionally good and am happy to have him as a contributor.

A little controversy isn't a bad thing.

(BTW, I like the hat. I wasn't aware of Craig's announcement list. I'll have to ask about that.)

On Friday, November 26th, Sunni said:

What a surprise indeed, Tom! I'm on Craig's announcement list and saw this several days ago. Been meaning to blog about it, but wasn't entirely sure what to say in response.

One question I have for Craig, though, is this: what about those who do kill their own meat? Are they still "bound to the state"?