Our Relationship With Amazon

Some of you may have noticed that we have resumed our relationship with Amazon.com. The reason is simple: it was dumb to boycott just Amazon when practically every banking institution and every hosting service in the country was caving in to pressure to refuse services to WikiLeaks. We thought it was important, however, to speak out against the intimidation tactics of the US government, and that we did: as George W. Bush would say – “Mission accomplished!” Seriously, though, we didn’t really think that one through: and I, for one, never thought that so many would be cowed into bowing to the dictates of the US government. Ever the optimist, I was shocked when so many caved. Live and learn.

And of course another reason for our return to the Amazon fold is financial: we just can’t afford the thousand or so dollars a month we make from the relationship, and several of our donors raised this question with us during the recent fundraising drive. It is a point well taken. We listen to you, our readers and supporters, and not only that, we respond.

One thought on “Our Relationship With Amazon”

  1. This post is one of the reasons I think you are one of the best writers in the business. You do not set up yourself as God and pretend that you are correct all the time. I do think you are correct most of the time, but it so very refreshing to hear someone admit when they make a mistake.

  2. I see. So, when everyone else is caving, that makes it all right. As long as you need the money.

    It was "dumb" to stand on principle. Perhaps I was "dumb" for admiring it, too, and for once again being proud of my monthly contribution to this site?

    A better case would be: we believe that caving on this principle is justified by the larger principle of maintaining this site as a resource and promotional tool for dissent.

  3. Fighting to save this country feels like trying to save the life of a cancer patient who insists on smoking four packs a day.

  4. A very big reason for supporting Amazon is that they allow you to publish anti-war books on their in house company. I've published six of them and they continue to support what I am doing. Thank God for Amazon.

    1. Name a self-publishing company that will NOT do so. Lulu does not care what you publish, either, as long as you pay them. Why thank God or Amazon?

  5. Fair enough, Raimondo. Some of us will continue with the boycott. . . perhaps until we see Amazon publish Julian Assange's book. But, in the mean time, I hope you rake in millions from them to run this great site.

  6. I'd like to say that personally, Amazon is on my enemies list forever. There do seem to be few options for making commissions selling books, and like it or not, Antiwar.com readers seem to continue to buy a lot of stuff on the site — why should they keep all that cash at Amazon? It's a business decision that makes us all feel bad. And on top of it, we have some commerce-fetishist libertarians defending Amazon like it's a victim. This is why the left says libertarians are corporatists — some of them truly are.

    It's a long road ahead, and maybe none of it will matter as WikiLeaks and other sites grow stronger and bolder; Anonymous grows in power, membership, and seriousness and has its own spinoffs; and the internet is finally decentralized through products like the Freedom Box. Then it's curtains for states and their pet corporations. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/nyregion/16abou

  7. It’s not often that people admit their reversal as opposed to explaining why it isn’t *technically* a reversal. I understand the previous commenter’s point about principle. I also understand AW’s need for funding. Not every situation has a clear cut answer and while I agree principles are proven true in times of crisis, I don’t run a website where I have to make calls like this. I imagine it comes down to whether a boycott or this site makes a bigger impact. If your numbers say a boycott would endanger the site, I support your decision. To those troubled by it, please give what you can to help AW.

  8. Why does this cessation of AntiWar.com's boycott of Amazon not surprise me? That's because I saw no consistency by AntiWar.com continuing to use PayPal, VISA and MasterCard for donations back in mid-December.

    I made this point of inconsistency in an email to Angela Keaton (her email address is on the website Donation page) on December 16 2010 while expressing pleasure at the boycott of Amazon. I added:
    "I and husband Paul Wakfer have canceled PP (as well as Amazon) and reduced MC & Visa to emergencies or w/ debit card only – see "WikiLeaks: What can one person do to help?" (http://selfsip.org/focus/helpwikileaks.html) Our philosophical justification for boycotting is in the works! [Completed the next day – "Libertarians Need less Strategy — and more Principle!" (http://selfsip.org/focus/libertariansneedmoreprinciple.html)].

    "XipWire.com may be a good alternate transmission method for you from those within US. They have Wikileaks directly as a donation recipient and a cell phone is no longer a necessity for donations (I used my PC & home phone on 12/10, alerting them to "hole" in their system which they then expanded) – they're working feverishly on expanding for all transmittals to "friends/families". Hope this method can be made to work for you. Also how about e-checks too?"
    ——–end of 12/16/10 email excerpt——-
    No response was received.

    On January 18, I emailed Angela Keaton again, this time expressing disappointment at AntiWar.com's continued use of "PayPal, Visa and MasterCard for donations when all of these corporations refuse to transmit their customers' own money to WikiLeaks – all because the US government wants WikiLeaks stopped from releasing embarrassing information. Since AntiWar.com is "devoted to the cause of non-interventionism" and WikiLeaks has made a major contribution to worldwide government (and corporation) harm-causing information availability to individuals, I have been expecting that the website would replace its usage of these 3 money transfer corporations because of their blatant anti-WikiLeaks actions."

    In this same email I also expressed confusion:
    "by seeing on XIPWIRE.com's non-profit page this evening, a campaign listing for AntiWar.com – https://xipwire.com/give/antiwar
    "Is this something very new that has not yet been completed for inclusion at the AntiWar.com website itself? If so, I am pleased to see it and hope that you will complete this very soon along with a written statement to AntiWar.com readers of a move away from the anti-WikiLeaks pro-government corporations of PayPal, Visa and MasterCard (Bank of America too as a bank that won't transmit any of it's customer's own money if directed to WikiLeaks). It is just this kind of supportive action beyond words that is sorely needed by major liberty-promoting websites to keep the tidal pressure moving towards true liberty. Many individuals have already canceled Amazon, PayPal and even the Visa and MasterCard credit account (our credit cards are on an emergency use only basis – haven't had a need yet – and the debit MasterCard is for pay-at-the-pump gas only) as demonstrations of negative Social Preferencing towards those corporations and positive Social Preferencing towards WikiLeaks.

    "I do most sincerely hope that you will confirm AntiWar.com's move away from pro-government anti-WikiLeaks PayPal, Visa and MasterCard and towards XIPWIRE and other companies that are at least not anti-WikiLeaks."
    ———–end of 1/18/11 email to akeaton—————
    Again no response was received.

    At the time of the 1/18 email I was in the middle of writing "Are Principles Unaffordable" (http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordable.html) which addressed the claim by websites, "We can't afford to do that", when approached with the recommendation to use alternatives to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, because of their harmful actions towards WikiLeaks, which took place without those corporations being legally compelled to act as they did,

    So the fact that AntiWar.com has failed – again – to be consistent in its stated principles does not surprise, though it still disappoints, me.

    To the extent that AntiWar.com is supportive of the actions of the State, which includes patronizing those voluntary organizations that are eager to cooperate with government, then AntiWar.com is not truly serious about the stopping and preventing of war, the State's major physical force "product". Writing about being against war is easy – "talk the talk". However, doing things that are effective in truly doing away with, or at least greatly reducing, the war creators – "walk the walk" – is something that many websites and writers are not willing to do. It seems that the inconvenience of doing that kind of "walking" is just too much for AntiWar.com and that "talking" is all that will be done "to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements" (from the AntiWar.com Mission statement). This leaves the AntiWar.com website with the true subtitle "in words only".

    1. Edit attempts to correct the 1st 2 and 4th links above have not succeeded…??!
      Therefore here are those 2 short paragraphs with good links:
      "I and husband Paul Wakfer have canceled PP (as well as Amazon) and reduced MC & Visa to emergencies or w/ debit card only – see "WikiLeaks: What can one person do to help?" http://selfsip.org/focus/helpwikileaks.html Our philosophical justification for boycotting is in the works! [Completed the next day – "Libertarians Need less Strategy — and more Principle!" http://selfsip.org/focus/libertariansneedmoreprin… ].

      At the time of the 1/18 email I was in the middle of writing "Are Principles Unaffordable" – http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordabl… – which addressed the claim by websites, "We can't afford to do that", when approached with the recommendation to use alternatives to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, because of their harmful actions towards WikiLeaks, which took place without those corporations being legally compelled to act as they did,

  9. Beneath para crusing there are two choices such as seaside parasailing, during which person is made to land on the beach and whereas in winch boat parasailing, the person lands on winch boat. A few of the finest lodges together with The Taj and Bogmallo Resort present necessary accommodation and pleasure for this enthralling sport. Grande islands, Pigeon Island, St. George Island and Devagh Island are some of the locations to enjoy this fascinating sport. Over the same period additionally elevated with greater than 1%. All Enlinea

Comments are closed.