Ideas on effectively protesting a lose/lose election

These are trying times in the US. We're coming to a close on our current POTUS and are bombarded by obvious lies by one popular candidate and racism, segregstion and indirect plans by the other. I live half a country away from Washington DC. Does anyone have ideas of how i could bring about effective protesting that could show peoplethey aren't the only ones angered by this outcome?
 

Vote for a third party.

 
 

How will that help when the electoral college can easily ignore the majority votes?

 
 

No kidding. Also, thanks to the dynamics of the US electoral system, no third party has had more than a passing chance in well over a century. And even as a protest vote, it still seems to imply that all that is needed is a better party, when that is clearly not the problem (see Syriza, the Green party in various parts of the world, etc.).

 
 

That’s really a big problem. Although, I dont think that this is a matter worth to protest for. Both of them sucks, thats clear. In this times, I think that the best we can do is to care about the things that souround us. Engaging with this issue know compells us to chose the lesser evil… And I dont think that there is a lesser evil now… unfortunatedly.

 
 

Fortunately despite your efforts, Donald Trump won. I say fortunately, because he was and is the anti-establishment candidate. He vows to permanently end the American Government terrorist activities—domestic and abroad; look at his policy to force politicians to remove two regulations for every one added (Or to sardonically jest: “One step forward, two steps backward”). The establishment wants you to believe that he is a racist, misogynist, and a rapist (reminiscent of a deep intolerance, `if you’re against us you must be excoriated by social pressure, i.e. a racist`); yet a plethora of substantiated evidence suggests contrary. He is the first president in a while, who doesn’t repeat the woe’s of the `white man`, specifically the western man’s burden (now western man because of the success of the doctrine!). I don’t know of any crusade in history that has cost more lives than trying to instill western values onto the rest of the world..and for what?

But rather than further engage in trivial argument like a reprobate, I highly recommend to look at his biggest contributor and member of the executive committee for his transition team—Peter Thiel. The politics of Peter Thiel are masqueraded under the guise of libertarian or Republican. However, with a meticulous analysis, it’s quite clear that he is an anarchist, trapped under a facade from the current social intolerance in the USA.

Peter Thiel is perhaps the only anarchist, albeit in the closet, to achieve such wealth and influence in the history of the USA. There is a good quote from him, “I don’t believe that there can be freedom under democracy”. Of course he speaks of the direct democracy voting sham, the tyranny of the majority—something that the founding fathers fought arduously against (perhaps a future argument on why electoral college is the only mitigation of evil in a ballot casting democratic society, assuming tolerance of minority thought and culture) .

 
 

I won’t bother to argue with this Kauaioo person. There’s clearly no point: he is an alt-right entryist seeking to create confusion about what anarchism and freedom really mean. I’ll simply point out a few of the places I would start:

—There are many ways to be against the establishment. Hitler, at one point in his career, was anti-establishment. No one gets my support simply for opposing what I oppose. Genuine anarchists oppose all the candidates and the office for which they were running as well. This much is obvious.

—No New York billionaire is “anti-establishment.” That’s just a transparent ploy to make rebellious working folks identify with one of the capitalists who has enriched himself at their expense.

—Once you’re President of the United States, any notion that you’re “anti-establishment” is bunk. You are at the pinnacle of the establishment. Pro-Trump bootlickers are going to have their work cut out for them trying to argue that the Commander in Chief is a rebel but the poor people getting beaten by police are defenders of the status quo. That’s a remarkably stupid idea.

Trump “vows to permanently end the American Government terrorist activities — domestic and abroad.” This is an utterly meaningless statement, since “terrorism” is a category arbitrarily defined by the government to justify whatever they wish to. On the other hand, it is true that Trump is the preferred candidate of the border patrol, the FBI, and other various authoritarian forces.

—Kauaioo likes to sound smart and verifiable (“a plethora of substantiated evidence suggests contrary”…“with a meticulous analysis, it’s quite clear”) but never actually presents the evidence or the analysis.

—The idea that anyone could be an anarchist while endorsing authoritarian institutions like the FBI, border patrol, etc. is laughable. Peter Thiel is a classic US “libertarian”: he doesn’t seek freedom, but rather, a hierarchical society structured by pure capitalist competition and biopolitical control. Anarchy designates a condition without rule, i.e., in which no one can systematically wield the coercive force of society over anyone else. Trump and Thiel represent the opposite of this: they are partisans of untrammeled rule, of rule in its pure form.

So, in short, for Kauaioo, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and (above all!) freedom is slavery. In the future, we will see more and more of this sort of propaganda, because the bootlickers know that the only way to truly defeat our struggle against their oppressive order would be to replace all the genuine forms of contestation, such as anarchism, with ersatz versions, such as anarcho-capitalism, that occupy the same niches while directing people to prop up the system rather than overturn it. Suckers like Kauaioo may even tell themselves they are being rebellious as they engage in the classic fascist activity of celebrating the Great Leader and sowing confusion about what freedom is.

There, I’ve wasted time enough, but it should be clear how the lines are drawn.

 
 

— Genuine anarchists do things. I’m not going to engage the ad hominem argument, the argument of whether I’m sincere in my own beliefs; but genuine anarchists hold a belief with such conviction that they are forced to do things about it. No one has ever done anything alone, and supporting candidates that aim to shrink the tool of corruption that government is, is a start. Sitting on your computer and detaching yourself from society has never gotten anyone anywhere.

— Terrorism is not arbitrarily defined, unless you are so impressed by authority, you concede to any government’s definition of a word and treat it vernacularly. Terrorism is any policy instituted through fear (i.e. `monopolic` government itself is terrorism, all foreign wars, etc). Trump supports an isolationist policy and less taxes, both treatments on terrorism. While it is true that the border patrol supports Trump, the FBI endorsed Clinton. EDIT: I realize that you may have misinterpreted my statement, Trump vow’s to end Amerika’s terroristic activities.

— If you weren’t so deluded in your desire for discourse, you could’ve seen that I meant Trump is not anti-establishment by his identity, only by his vowed governmental actions. Anyone who wants to permanently amend the constitution to remove two prior regulations for every new regulation, is by definition: anti-establishment. So in the challenge of evidence, Trump has non-racist actions like suing Palm Beach to allow blacks and jews into clubs; trump’s club Mar-A-Lago was the first to do so; Trump’s campaign manager is the first winning female manager; Trump contracted a female for construction manager of trump tower, making her the first female to build a skyscraper; Trump personally ran Harlem Hoops, an inner city hoops program. There has never been, and there is no evidence that suggests he is racist.

— Peter Thiel is an anarchist. As I mentioned, Peter Thiel is under the facade of a libertarian. But one of his quotes is “…I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible…”. So in pursuant in his libertarianism actions, it’s obvious by abduction, that he must be some type of anarchist.

In short, for eleutheria, isolationist non-action supports anarchist revolution, fallacies are appropriate arguments, and ignorance is sufficient; especially when it’s derived from unfounded establishment media criticisms—criticisms that pander to an intolerance of differing ideas, by accusing contrarians of being racist or other societal sins. Additionally, I hope you don’t regularly engage in McCarthyist dogma. Stating that I’m here to defeat your struggle, and other paranoid delusions is what destroys communities. Also, you don’t know what anarcho-capitalism is. Anarcho-capitalism is true anarchism, in which there is no system, there is no government, only people. Anarcho-capitalism is a consequence of true, pure, Anarchism, where people are allowed to make their own currencies, provide their own services which government once provided, etc. You willing choose to pay for services with your work or something with agreed value. The ability to freely make contracts with people. If you disagree with the tenants of anarcho-capitalism you disagree with the very principle you wish to be for—the complete freedom of people. Virtually every other version of Anarchism has obscure policies of organized surrogate governments that are controlled through ballot casting direct democracy, which “systematically wield the coercive force of society” over the minority. Thus, as Peter Thiel states “democracy and freedom are not compatible”, and as others state: “democracy is the tyranny of the majority”, “democracy isn’t freedom, democracy is asking two wolves and a sheep what to eat for lunch”.

If you get anything from this, I hope it’s that engagement is key to freedom, any action is better than any non-action. “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” – Elie Wiesel

 
 

If you are sincere, you clearly haven’t thought through what you’re saying properly. Again, I can’t engage with everything in your string of logical fallacies, but here are a few of the more obvious ones:

— “[A]ny action is better than any non-action”… so actively supporting a demagogue who promises to deport even more people than Obama did is a step towards a stateless, borderless society. Sure. I agree absolutely that neutrality helps the oppressor, but you are actively calling people to support the oppressor directly. The non-action of not deporting millions of people would produce more freedom than supporting and legitimizing the person promising to arrange their deportation.

—I’m not sure what you are proposing that we do, anyway, besides ceding our own agency to politicians, which is typical democratic or fascist behavior but has nothing to do with anarchism. But to identify one of your many logical fallacies, just because I don’t endorse your program doesn’t mean I must be “[s]itting on [my] computer and detaching [my]self from society” …you clearly have no idea what an active anarchist might be up to at this time, and considering that you are urging people to collude with the authorities, I would discourage anyone from speaking to you on the subject.

—You list a few things that Trump did that supposedly disqualify him from racism. Look, this is not a question about his character, but about his actions. What about the “bad hombres” remark, which was clearly pandering to racists, just like his citationless references to rapists coming across the border from Mexico? You don’t think that those contribute to a climate of hatred towards Latino/Latina folks? And you don’t think that his trying to lead the charge to deport millions of people of color who have lived here for years and years qualifies as contributing to systemic racism? No, on the contrary, because you are an insane person, you think that building more border walls and investing more money in policing, raids, deportations, etc. is somehow… anarchist.

—Incidentally, I want to point out that it sounds to me like you have an inordinate amount of faith in Trump to do all the things he says he is going to do. Did you never previously encounter a politician? You know they say some things to get elected, and then do other things, right?

—Just because Thiel says that he no longer believes “that freedom and democracy are compatible” doesn’t mean that his conception of freedom matches ours. I don’t have time to get into everything despicable about him, but it blows my mind that you are looking to these people who are enriching themselves at others’ expense in hopes they will create more freedom in your life. Imagine Russian serfs looking to the Tsar for the same thing two hundred years ago! There’s always the temptation to make those who are stronger than you into a prosthesis for your own ego and imagined agency, just like when you are watching a soap opera and identifying with the protagonist.

—As for my disagreement with the “tenants” (sic, and it’s a telling Freudian slip!) of “anarcho”-capitalism, a wealth of material is already in circulation addressing this. (For the roughest of introductions, try crimethinc.com/podcast/18/transcript18.html) It’s hilarious to me that you call “anarcho”-capitalism the “true” anarchism… have you seriously never heard of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Durruti, Louise Michel, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Nestor Makhno, or any of the other real anarchists who developed and popularized the concept? You want to steal the ideal for which they gave their lives (that human beings might freely establish mutually consensual relationships, outside and in opposition to all coercion) and put it at the service of the logic that has created so much hierarchy, exploitation, and oppression today?

For now, I’ll simply say this: “anarcho”-capitalists believe in all the freedom money can buy, and not a single whit more. Real anarchists recognize that the fundamental function of property is to create hierarchies (in contrast to the notion of the commons, which aims to produce egalitarian relations), and the fundamental function of profit-driven economics is to concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands. Profit is not the same as benefit; when real anarchists interact, we aspire to do so to mutual benefit, but the essence of profit is that one person always comes out ahead. We can’t all profit at once—that would just be inflation. Not surprisingly, social systems based in profit and property always need a state to enforce them: you can’t maintain property rights and other forms of dramatic imposed power imbalances without employing systematic coercion. “Anarcho”-capitalism is the insane idea that everyone could reach consensus to perpetuate profit- and property-driven relations that would benefit a minority at everyone else’s expense. We can freely arrive at mutually satisfactory relations as an end in itself, and defend ourselves when that is impossible, OR we can codify legitimacy through a system of laws and property rights coercively enforced by a state, but we can’t do both.

That, my friend, is why if you are an “anarcho”-capitalist, you are not an anarchist. That’s the short version, anyway.

—You say “[v]irtually every other version of Anarchism has obscure policies of organized surrogate governments that are controlled through ballot casting direct democracy.” This is flagrantly untrue. Either you actually have very little knowledge about real anarchism, or you are being deliberately dishonest. In either case, it wouldn’t take much trouble for you (or any other readers) to learn otherwise. Did you read the analysis of democracy that prompted this discussion page? (crimethinc.com/texts/r/democracy) It is only one of countless examples of real anarchism, which don’t match your description.

Just who has been feeding you this tripe? Or are you a tripemonger yourself?

 
 

Also, where are you getting your assertion that the FBI supported Clinton? A cursory search produces plenty of material about people from the FBI endorsing Trump, but nothing about them endorsing Clinton. I’m passing the burden of proof back to you. Kallstrom made his partisanship clear enough, and Comey’s media stunt may have cost her the election. Am I missing something?

 
 

— I never said Trump was a perfect candidate. But the consequences of his actions lead to a nation closer to anarchism, not voting is just laziness when you have someone who wants to destroy fundamental institutions of statism like the FDA, EPA, etc. You, personally you, would be much less effective alone. You wish to pursue goals without ever cooperating with someone who has some interests which you are aligned with; because of insolent ‘principle’. Your anti-social modality is why anarchism may never be realized. Immigration laws in America has always existed, and always have been enforced. Trump is offering the opportunity of peace abroad, instead of crusader values, and the permanent deregulation of Amerika with his constitutional amendment to remove two federal regulations for every new regulation.

— You continue to follow the media lies and scapegoat (in the Girard sense) rhetoric of Trump being racist, when again his actions decisively prove otherwise. It’s clear he’s against all illegal immigrants equally. In regards to him not doing anything he says he’s already hired people who have personal interests in destroying the institutions they are suppose to run. Like Morbyn Ebell, Scott Pruit, and Andrew Puzder (also possibly Jim O’Neill). You’re being parsimonious, in order to affirm the bias.

— Money is not essential or even has to be realized for anarcho-capitalism. This is how we know you don’t have any understanding of anarcho-capitalism. And even if it did, money is not inherently statist, considering your hero Bakunin’s Anarcho-collectivism was envisioned to be run with money. I looked at your link and they just show a massive intolerance without reading about, which you likely did as well. They literally say they’ve never heard of it and “Anarcho-capitalist? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day”. Just like you. Intolerance is the reason why kings and gods are able to rule men.

— “We can’t all profit at once—that would just be inflation”, no discernibly you have no understanding of the most basic economics. Read up on Pareto Efficiency, the condition in which everyone profits. That’s what GDP is. It’s an elementary fallacious idea that economics is a zero-sum game. You’ve also never heard of decentralized currencies like Bitcoin, or ledger systems. Under anarcho-capitalism rights are protected by services people can subscribe to, like court systems, bundles that provide old government services, etc. But again this doesn’t have to exist, because these are the same fallacies that are brought up against all anarchism thought (“How would you protect yourself?”). Despite your ignorance, Anarcho-capitalism is (what it really is) the simple idea that people should be able to make agreements with one another (something that is true with ALL anarchism, otherwise that’s a big violation of freedom). After all, who doesn’t profit when two people willing agree? You should look up what capitalism really is, and if you still disagree, then try looking up anarchism.

— The crimethinc democracy article agrees with me clearly. Also being against ballot casting democracy, and the tyranny of the majority.

— As for Peter Thiel, I’ll ignore your ad hominem argument (virtually your entire `dissertation`), but a smoking gun (that I discovered today) is that he believes, the anarcho-capitalist book, “Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life” is one of the most substantial texts.

When I first started this discussion I was sure you were an anarchist, but now I’m beginning to believe you’re not a consequentialist anarchist or even an idealist. You’re just being edgy, and you have no understanding of anarchism whatsoever.

 
 

You keep pointing to what politicians promise they are going to do, or say they believe. None of those arguments are the slightest bit credible. I don’t care what some rich man says he wants, whether in church or in reference to some book he read. I care about what happens in our real social relations. The existence and activities of a Peter Thiel don’t improve matters for the rest of us. For every millionaire, a lot more people end up in relative poverty. When I see him contributing massive resources to struggles that aim to abolish the imposed power differentials that constitute the hierarchies of our age, we can take this up again. In the meantime, in short, you are a fanboy who is getting suckered.

Let’s talk about capitalism for a second. I don’t buy your argument about GDP. I’m familiar with bitcoin, etc., but let’s be real—right now, a few people with tremendous technological resources are amassing bitcoins, while others who have less technology to work with end up proportionately less powerful relative to them within that economic framework. So it’s just another way to produce inequality. I don’t care how you think it might work in theory. I care about what is actually happening.

Capitalism has produced more technologies, at cheaper and cheaper rates, while inflicting environmental devastation (effectively reducing resources that were held in common to public devastation and private capital), compelling those who do have resources to engage in colonial expansion and violence, and creating ever-escalating inequalities in wealth and power. If you can’t acknowledge that that is how capitalism has worked, there is no point in anyone speaking with you. Sure, you can say that all the things that have been called capitalism up to this point in history are not capitalism, but then you have the same problem as certain partisans of democracy.

Also—no state, no capitalism. Up to today, that’s a historical fact. But you don’t seem to be particularly troubled about affirming the state and statist projects. Again, every politician from the right and left always promise that they’re going to take us in a better direction, if we just go along with them—Lenin and Trump both. One of the advantages of real anarchism (not your fake bullshit) is that it enables us to see through this, identifying how apparently pragmatic tactics are actually just pragmatic at moving towards goals that aren’t anarchistic at all.

If you have spent any time on the crimethinc.com site, it should be clear to you that they are not on your side. Likewise, if you think Bakunin struggled his whole life to realize the sort of nightmare that goes under the name “anarcho”-capitalism, you are being dishonest with yourself. Like him, I “hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me humanity is unthinkable without liberty.” But capitalism, also, historically, has meant the negation of liberty—not just for those who must labor as employees, but also because the pressure to make a profit ends up determining everything that those with resources can employ them to accomplish, lest they lose those resources.

You ask, “After all, who doesn’t profit when two people willing agree?” To make the most basic point about this popular “anarcho”-capitalist rhetoric, the question is what the constraints are. If I point a gun at your head and say “Your money or your life,” and you give me your money, I could say that that is a freely made agreement, but it would be a perversion of the meaning of freedom. To promote freedom, both the participants should come out of the interaction with a wider array of options, better able to dispose of their potential as they see fit—it doesn’t work if they are part of a zero-sum game in which one of them profits at the other’s expense. So think about the tenant of whom the landlord demands rent, the proletarian with no resources and nothing to sell but her labor, etc.—in all those cases, the coercion may be a little less visible, but it is fundamental to the situation, and without it no one would ever enter into agreements that create such dramatic power imbalances. This is the problem with all systems that depend on money, property, and other ways of imposing constructed power imbalances. They all require coercion. I’m not against making agreements freely—that is the essence of anarchism (and defending ourselves from those who would force things on us—like everybody who believes in property rights). I just don’t think that you have fully thought through all the factors that can prevent us from being truly free as we discuss our agreements.

Indeed, you don’t hesitate to call on us to support politicians and businessmen whose activities actively detract from our capacity to freely dispose of our lives and arrange relationships as we see fit. It seems to be the only template for action you have! It’s like you’re a bot programmed to utilize superficial anarchist rhetoric to promote statist goals and structures. Have you no points of reference for what it means to make use of your potential on your own terms, directly, without reinforcing statist models?

 
 

And here, let me help you out, since you apparently made an utterly baseless claim that the FBI was backing Clinton and didn’t bother to follow through on where you were getting that. It seems that the CIA (after the election!) is reporting that Russia tried to throw the election to Putin. I guess that counts as the CIA not totally being in his corner?

Now, I can totally understand why Putin would want to support Trump—whether allied or at odds, all those strongmen want the conflicts in our world to be between different nations, not between the powerless and the powerful. What I can’t understand is why someone like you would be pushing for the world they are trying to create, rather than seeking common cause with people like us against it.

 
   

Trump is entirely pro-establishment; that’s the sad irony. It would be incredible if he really wanted to “drain the swamp”—but he did the exact opposite. He’s a totalitarian and in direct opposition to everyone’s political agendas on this site. Clinton would have been awful, but there is serious disillusion in thinking Trump is better. At least he’s bringing “antifa” into the vocabulary of Americans, and people are realizing their culpability in the situation that got us here.