Friday, August 11, 2006

My Letter To Chomsky

The following letter was originally submitted to Noam Chomsky's MySpace page (yes, he has a fanclub) and then forwarded to his MIT email address. I'm posting it here because I thought a few of you might be interested in leaving some comments about it.

You've done a great job putting the spotlight on the atrocities committed by the world governments and you've opened the eyes of many people and started them down a less ignorant path. That said, I do have a few issues with you that I hope will be considered in good faith.

The Earth is currently experiencing the most devastating period of mass-extinction ever ( but I haven't heard you mention this much and wonder what course of action you would suggest to stop the bio-devastation. This relates to a question I had about N30 (the "Battle in Seattle" 1999). Do you think the corporations that fund the destruction of the Earth should have attention drawn to them in such a dramatic way? Like the GAP with their ties to deforestation, nevermind sweatshops. Should it have it's windows smashed as an expression of utter intolerance? Should we tolerate what they do or should we just not shop there? A similiar thing happened to McDonalds. These corporate industries are destroying the planet, what should we do about them?

A big issue I have with you is on the topic of peak oil. You've suggested that the consequences of peak oil won't really be felt for decades and that alternative energy will provide solutions but, with all due respect, I think that is the line of the media not at all backed up by hard science. Every aspect of modern life is tied to petroleum from transportation to agricultural petro-chemicals to plastics to asphalt. If you don't believe me, check out the website.

Well, I really don't want to take up too much space but I would love to start a dialogue about these things so that they can be clarified. Oh, and I also wonder, since you are known as a revolutionary, where you stand on the modern revolutionary movement. Is there one? Will it sprout out of protests or groups like adbusters or Why aren't people in the streets? Will we be in time? Should we be (and with what demeanor)?

Iranian Power Grab Debacle

It's amazingly easy to disregard the systematic genocides of the past without mentioning the current genocidal activities which are happening now in central Africa and elsewhere. Beyond the destruction of human lives is the most devastating period of mass extinction in the history of the planet (NOT barring the end of the Jurassic period) which is also largely overlooked as species in every phylum disappear forever at an unprecedented rate. Why this willful ignorance persists is up for debate (like everything else in this apologistic post-modern world) but what seems clear is... certain human beings have situated themselves in positions of power over who and what lives or, more likely, dies. However self-destructive the actions of these privileged elites will eventually prove to be seems wholly irrelevant to them -- as long as their group/family/organization continues to rule while human society lasts. Whether or not these groups of controlling elites are globally hegemonic or more nationalistic isn't very important as long as large amounts of of immense power and wealth have been collected into the hands of these elitists (and to maintain that fortune and power they will deal with the masses ruthlessly -- with or without assistance from other elite groups around the world). One could easily speculate about the final devastation of their gluttonous greed but, for now, in this article, let us focus upon the not-so-distant history of the middle east and, more specifically, upon the impending devastation to be unleashed upon Iran.
Foremostly, it must be understood that the developing crisis in Iran is almost wholly about literal power -- energy in the form of petroleum oil. The group threatening Iran is based in, and holds control over, the United States of America. Petro-chemicals are the leading export of this nation. The USA gathers petroleum from around the world and processes it into fuel, agricultural chemicals, plastics, and other products which it makes use of domestically and exports internationally. The US is literally covered in roads made of petroleum derived asphalt. Every sector of this wealthiest nations economy is linked to petroleum -- from agriculture to transportation to the whole military-industrial complex. Every severe economic crisis of 20th century America was preceded by a sharp increase in the price of petroleum. Petroleum is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy and the bloodlust for it is evermore insatiable. The underlying importance of this paragraph is in the fact that that the nation of Iran has the second largest proven petroleum reserves within its borders. For the power elites in America to maintain their economic and military supremacy they must control that petroleum.
To a lesser extent the invasion of Iran will be about military power -- the power of nuclear missiles in particular. Should the military of Iran ever develop nuclear strike capability, that would effectively deter any invasion (and the subsequent loss of control over the Iranian oil by the Iranian power elites). Furthermore, a brutal and ruthless display of American military strength (that could make the war in Iraq look like the 4th of July) would deter the power elites in every other nation from developing nuclear weapons in particular and, in general, from challenging US supremacy at all anywhere.
This is about the long-term control over the resources and people around the globe. It is possible that the sudden consequences of peak oil and the new technologies enabling easier nuclear proliferation have caught the power elites off guard to some degree -- but you can be certain that they are now fully aware of these implications and are more than prepared for a brazen power grab. A ground war in Iraq was planned long before the 9/11 attacks and that nation had been softened up by bombings for a decade beforehand (reiterated in case anyone failed to notice). Elsewhere in the middle-east historic plans by the American power elite to control the regions petroleum reserves have met with mixed results -- relative success with the royalty in Saudi Arabia and... with pointed failure in their support of the Shah in Iran. Suffice it to say that the existence and usefulness of petroleum in the mid-east isn't news -- nor is political intrigue or military action to control it. In WW2 there was talk about dropping an A-bomb over what is now Saudi Arabia to prevent Nazi's from getting control over the region's resources -- that didn't prove especially necessary or feasible but the topic came up nevertheless and persists as a potentially feasible strategy.
So let us now consider the current situation in Iran... What wouldn't the ruling class in America do to control the region and resources of Iran? Would they kill a million Iranians? How about ten million or more? From the pre-american aboriginals to the middle passage to WW2 and Vietnam, such numbers are hardly unprecedented and the sophistication of military technology is far more advanced now. There has even been relatively candid talk of using "bunker buster" nuclear weapons in Iran and keeping the option to use nukes "on the table," to quote US President George W. Bush.
Anyone willing to dismiss this nuclear sabre-rattling as an idle threat might be in for an unpleasant surprise to their wishful thinking. Why wouldn't they do it? A large portion of the US population seems to be under the sway of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh -- and many of the rest would be ready to tow the patriotic line in the event of another 9/11-type Reichstag fire. Can't you just here the people talking over the water coolers and in the soup lines: "They only used small tacticular newkler boms and Al Kider IS based in Iran (probably were they'll find Osama)" As for the rest who might still be appalled by the use of nuclear weapons -- they will be marginalized, belittled, harassed and, if necessary, rounded up.
(That's just what fascistic regimes end up doing.) Around the world other populations will be outraged and may even want to boycott American products -- but so what? American corporations sell advanced and essential products directly to other governments and multi-national corporations which need those products to control and feed their populations. And any serious uprising which threatens US business interests could meet the same fate as the Iraqis & Iranians -- many people will continue to just stay in line and out of trouble.
In the final analysis... a serious attack on Iran will destabilize the security of the world. Russia and China will seize the opportunity to deal harshly with Chechnya and Taiwan, Japan will strengthen it's push for nuclear armaments, and India and Pakistan will move closer to full-scale nuclear war. The genocidal war in Africa will continue to rage out of control and a myriad of other conflicts around the world will erupt. Ecocide and the effects of global warming will continue but... The powers that be will control what's left of the precious petroleum oil and they will use it to continue their domination for decades until, finally, one day, techno-industrial civilization violently and completely collapses.

Oh no! It just occurred to me...

The coming presidential campaigns are really going to be a boorish drag. Bush will be out but another fascist will undoubtedly take his place. Presidential politics in this country are the best example of the old "good cop/bad cop" routine -- whoever it is that takes office will most assuredly not be representing the best interests of the masses. It's looking like Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the leading democratic candidate and, seeing as how she is the most pro-war senator, she'll probably win (and the left will be magically pacified). It's disgusting. And then, for you naive idealists... let's suppose a semi-righteous candidate like Nader or Kucinich somehow gets elected. Fat chance, I know, but humor me for a moment. If they really did take the necessary measures to turn this country of theirs around, it would destroy the economy and then there would be a fierce backlash making things worse than ever. If you regulate polluting industries and take efforts to stop car culture, not to mention if you cut back on military spending, the American economy would go into shock and the the environmentalists would take the blame. Similarly... if there is another 9/11 type attack they would be blamed for being to soft of defense and that sentiment would usher in an even more draconian era. Anyway... what people need to accept is that an economic shock is going to be necessary to turn things like global warming around (if that is even still possible). I don't think most of us are ready for this reality. Nevertheless, it's probably better if the collapse happens sooner rather than later so that the destruction will stop and the healing can begin (if that's possible).

9/11 Reality (Conspiracy THEORY Unnecessary)

Porter Goss, former congressman who co-chaired the 9/11 Investigative Committee and current head of the CIA (appointed by President George W. Bush), was at a meeting with the General Ahmoud Ahmad -- head of Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) -- on the morning of September 11th, 2001 when two hijacked jets rammed into the World Trade Center. The ISI is known to have supported both the Taliban & Al Queda. General Ahmad had ties to Osama bin Laden and is thought to have personally approved a $100,000 wire transfer to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.

Bush's father, former President (and ex-head of the CIA) George H.W. Bush, spent the night at the White House and had breakfast with Osama bin Laden's brother Shafiq on the morning of 9/11. Shafiq was in town to be the special guest at the Annual Carlyle Investor's meeting. On the morning of 9.11.01, at the Ritz/Carlton Hotel in D.C., Shafiq attended the meeting with former defense secretaries Frank Carlucci (also a former CIA director) and James Baker III. Both the Bush's and the bin Laden's were heavily invested in Carlyle (the $18 Billion investment group known as the "ex-presidents club") which made large private profits thanks to the warring aftermath of 9/11. Among other world leaders present the Annual Carlyle Investor's Meeting were former British Prime Minister John Major and former treasurer of the World Bank Afsaneh Beschloss. Also worth noting is the fact that the current President Bush's first business partner, at Arbusto Energy Inc., was Salem bin Laden (another of Osama's brothers).

Perhaps it's cynical to think that the world's power elite could be complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in order to consolidate even more power and wealth. And forget the Reichstag fire -- the most obvious answer couldn't be the correct one, could it? On the other hand, some believe the world's governments have been involved with much worse. In any case, the corporate media's position on 9/11 is also the position of the power elite.

Check the facts for yourself...

Update: March 20, 2013 -- I've written a clarification of this old ham-fisted article (which was originally a Myspace post) for the purposes of clarifying my current thoughts about the events of September 11th, 2001.  9/11 Conspiracies: For The Sake Of Full Disclosure

Why I keep posting about undercover police leading anti-war protests

Why I keep posting about the undercover police leading protest marches...

Firstly... I think it's a buried story of great importance (reposted again at the end of this analysis) that everyone should see.

Secondly... I want to remind people that their "friends" on myspace are not necessarily their friends. Even the tamest of activists might consider taking some measures of security culture to ensure that they aren't dealing with infiltrating agent provocateurs. If you check one of my older blogs you might see more about this.

Anyway, beyond the Orwellian nature of this police tactic (but somewhat related), I have a little conspiracy theory of my own about 9/11 conspiracy nuts...

While some of them may be good-hearted simpletons with good intentions, I think they may fall victim to some of those who must realize how ridiculous some of their own outrageous claims actually are. Then, when they tie their despicable and disgusting conspiratorial lies to something like the anti-war movement (or basic civil liberties issues) these causes are tied together with the disreputable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. And then the outrageous conspiracies make the plausible connections to governmental misdeeds seem over the top as well.

Furthermore, and here is where I might get a little out there myself... I wouldn't be surprised if these conspiracy wingnuts are actually trying to make connections and earn trust within other anti-governmental liberation movements. I guess I am just reiterating that point but it HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST (see the vids on my page) and you can be sure the government is using deep cover agents who are willing to risk life and limb to destroy current liberation movements. I think the expose about the undercover cops leading protest marches demonstates this reality quite well.

So here's the idea... If you (or persons you care about) are interested in protesting against the war and the police state, please repost this message in it's entirety. I will add the article about the undercover police "protesters" at the end of this bulletin and I ask you, as a personal favor, to copy and post this whole message (in it's entirety) as a reposted bulletin. I'll consider a personal favor and a step towards building a stronger community of activists on myspace.

Analysis of the Katrina Disaster (for posterity)

Thursday, September 08, 2005

The mess created by Katrina could be the worst environmental catastrophe since the first Gulf War or Chernobyl. Of course Katrina may have been stronger because of global warming which is also an obvious environmental catastrophe. Hurricane Katrina may prove to be only setting the stage for bigger storms to come.

In regards to the political aspects of this disaster... Politicians from both parties and at all levels of government have failed the people of New Orleans. The poor people without resources should have been bused out on the governments dime and the evacuations centers should have been stocked with food and water (that's not such a radical idea is it?). After the storm hit and the levee broke looting should have been completely overlooked because billions were going to be lost anyway and saving lives should have been made the priority -- the governor however ordered the opposite values to be upheld. Despicable.

FEMA head Brown flippantly wrote off many of the abondoned people by suggesting that they just should have heeded the evacuation order. President Bush later complimented him (and he'll probably even get some sort of commendation). For his part, before going to the diaster area, Bush went ahead to a fund raiser where he played guitar and spoke of other things as New Orleans drowned. Respect him, he is your fearless leader (evil chicken-hawk moron). Now he is going to investigate his own mishandling of this situation... I wonder if he'll discover his own ineptitude.

For her part, in the wake of this disaster, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice went shopping and then to the Monty Python Play "Spamalot" where she was booed afterwards. Her role may serve to quell the idea that race played a factor in the neglect of the victims in NOLA, and this may hold some truth, but just because this callous bitch is black doesn't mean she can't dislike black people.

And if you want to question the idea of institutional racism in Amerika you might want to read a history book or look at the prison-industrial complex (or maybe the social security safety net which many black people pay into but never get old enough to collect) or maybe you should examine the fact that black men are 63 percent less likely than white men to get heart bypass surgery even though they have a higher rate of cardivascular disease.

Back to the subject of NOLA... I wish they would have waited to pump out the toxic water into Lake Ponchartrain until they could have cleansed it at least a little bit. Frankly, I think that New Orleans should have been left as a flooded reminder of man's arrogant attitude towards nature. If they had to, they could rebuild a New New Orleans north of Ponchartrain. Since they aren't... they run the risk of this happening all over again. And what happens if al Queada blows a hole in the levee a few years down the line? As culturally and historically significant as New Orleans has been, it was and will be a disaster waiting to happen.

It's hard to see how anything good will come out of this disaster, but a disaster is what change may have been waiting for. We need a revolution at all levels in this country -- in terms of spirit, values, and ways of life in general. Let's hope Katrina proves to be the impetus for that revolution so that all of those abandoned people will not have died for nothing.