tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-325520562024-03-13T21:37:17.667-07:00Nihilo ZeroRadical thoughts on a variety of issues ranging from economics & environmental degradation to protests & the military-industrial complex.
For freedom, sustainability, and revolution.N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-38957921235020489812016-06-17T21:01:00.000-07:002016-06-17T21:01:32.672-07:00Regarding the current push for more gun control...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: red;"><b>(The following was written in response to </b></span></i><i><span style="color: red;"><b><span style="color: purple;"><i><span style="color: red;"><b><a href="http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2016/06/i-am-an-ar-15-owner-and-ive-had-enough/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an article by a self-proclaimed gun rights advocate</a></b></span></i></span> who was, nevertheless, calling for a ban on high-capacity magazines after the horrible mass shooting which recently took dozens of innocent lives in Orlando.)</b></span></i> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is an interesting opinion, but I'm
not convinced. That is to say, I don't think the proposed measure of
limiting magazine size would do much to curb most gun violence. Yes,
it may have had an effect on limiting the number of deaths in
Orlando, but mass shootings are only part of the problem in regard to
gun violence. Without having the data in front of me, it's most
probable that shooting incidents usually involve only one victim. I'd bet
there are far more incidents where 2 people are killed rather than
three. This trend undoubtedly continues up to the point where we
reach statistically rare events like the shooting in Orlando. And,
overall, I'd expect the tally of deaths from single-victim shootings
to be higher than the combined tally from shootings with multiple
victims. So... I'm not convinced that restricting magazine capacity
would dramatically reduce the number of shooting victims or the number of
shooting events which take place in the USA. It's also likely that
mass shootings would still take place where the perpetrator carries
multiple firearms and kills more than a few people.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But don't misunderstand... this doesn't
at all mean that I'm in favor of more aggressive gun control
measures. That's because I see the real problem as being America's
general culture of violence rather than violence specifically related
to guns.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It doesn't seem irrelevant that the
Tsarnaev brothers used pressure cookers to attack the Boston
Marathon. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and a moving van to kill
hundreds in Oklahoma City. The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters and
jetliners to kill several hundred people. And dozens were once
killed at a gay club in New Orleans by an arsonist who barricaded the
door. Other times, people have mowed over crowds in their cars.
We're obviously not going to expect a widespread call to ban the
tools used in those attacks. At the same time, those attacks are
significant enough, deadly enough, that's it's not illogical to
suggest that people who kill with guns could still find ways to kill even
if guns were somehow magically wiped off the face of the Earth.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I'll anticipate the counter-argument
that a limit on access to guns (or high-capacity magazines) would inconvenience some would-be
killers, thus dissuading them from carrying through with their
violent plans. And I believe there is some data from other nations
which suggests that this is somewhat true to a degree. HOWEVER...
the U.S. would sill have a higher rate of murder than most other
modern Western nations -- even if guns were banned in the United
States and allowed in those nations. Which brings us back to the
real root of the problem as I see it -- America's general culture of
violence.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Most other modern western nations don't
have the unique combination of problems which drive violence in
America. Due partly to massive and growing income inequality, the drug war, the
prison-industrial complex, religious fundamentalism, and lingering issues of racial
animosity... Americans are psychologically a mess. <i>Until problems
such as these are addressed in a meaningful and comprehensive way... America's culture
of violence will continue.</i>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's also not insignificant that the
Orlando Shooter worked for a state-contracted security firm. He was
specially licensed to carry firearms and likely would have still had
access to guns (perhaps even high-capacity clips) even if they had
been banned already.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's also not insignificant that he
dreamt of becoming an NYPD officer and regularly wore an NYPD
t-shirt. This is where the second Amendment starts to become
relevant. Constitutionally, in the Bill of Rights, there is a
reason it's the second thing listed after freedom of speech. And
it's worth noting that the Orlando shooter's proxy employment by the
government is something he shared with other killers like the D.C.
Sniper, the Fort Hood shooter, Timothy McVeigh, and other killers who
were all at one point paid by the U.S. government to carry weapons.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But more to the point regarding the
second amendment and the right to bear arms... the founding fathers
of the United States, despite all their faults, knew that governments were capable of
orchestrating major atrocities. The U.S. government has already been
responsible for two historic acts of genocide (domestically) with the
middle passage/slavery and its treatment of Native Americans. And,
now, the United States has a populist demagogue running for the
presidency who wants to register all members of a particular religion
(while barring further entry) and who also wants to deport
MILLIONS of undocumented immigrants. <i>And these are merely the things
which he feels are reasonable enough to say in public</i>. Perhaps he
won't be elected, but someone worse could take office somewhere down
the line in 4,8, or 20 years. In such an event, would a disarmed populace really be the
best thing? Or what if the other presidential candidate currently running doubles the prison
population again (as her husband did) in an effort to bring profits
to her major campaign contributors? Hell, maybe the prison population will even be tripled!
Would there be any point during such a process that members of the
general public might reasonably be expected to stop acting like
livestock?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now don't misunderstand, I'm not a gun
nut, don't own a gun, and generally frown upon gun violence as much
as the next person. Despite my comments here... I certainly won't be
leading the resistance or taking personal initiative should the state
institute more gun control. How ironic that such disclaimers are
required in the modern surveillance state which steadily promotes
increased gun control measures. Such is the life of an
anti-authoritarian leftist. The state looms over everything,
perpetuates violence across society in a myriad of ways, trains and
employs people who have committed some of the worst historic
atrocities, and this is the government which people would trust to
disarm the general public with sweeping gun control legislation.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I've digressed and the issue at
hand is whether a ban on guns (or simply more gun control) would
really make make society safer. I contend that it would not. Even
if the initial effects of such gun control reduced the amount of gun
violence in America, and even if other forms of deadly violence
didn't consequently rise in the aftermath, the stage could still be
set for much more tragedy down the line. Perhaps you trust the
current government, but it clearly has room to become more corrupt at
some point in the future. And a cursory look at history will reveal
that corrupted states have been responsible for countless tragedies.</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-21032332090285522632015-01-01T11:26:00.000-08:002016-02-11T20:14:51.712-08:00Eric Garner Was Not A Member Of Al Qaeda<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
By now, many have heard the story of
Eric Garner and have seen <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/04/i-cant-breathe-eric-garner-chokehold-death-video">the
video of his death</a> at the hands of the NYPD. Initially
approached by the police for his involvement in breaking up a fight,
he was then accused of selling loose single cigarettes (for what
would amount to the profit of a few pennies). He was then accosted
by police officers, became indignant at having to suffer yet another round of
harassment, <a href="http://www.hiaw.org/garner/">and had this to say
in response</a>:
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i>“Get away [garbled] … for what?
Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it.
It stops today. Why would you…? Everyone standing here will tell
you I didn’t do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because every time
you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled]
Selling cigarettes? I’m minding my business, officer, I’m
minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last
time, please just leave me alone. Please, please, don’t touch me.
Do not touch me.”</i>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At that point he was placed in an
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/03/the-nypd-banned-chokeholds-20-years-ago-but-hundreds-of-complaints-are-still-being-filed/">officially
banned choke-hold</a> by a police officer. In his very last words,
gasping for air, Eric Garner repeated the following: <i>“I can't
breathe.”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">How
did we as a society arrive at the point where an incident like this
can transpire? </span> A man breaks up a fight, gets accused of a
spurious crime, and then ends up dead at the hands of <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/nypd-cop-daniel-pantaleo-sued-three-times-2014-12">a police
officer who had repeatedly been accused of misconduct in the past</a>.
That this ever happened at all is a tragedy; that it's an incident
which most wouldn't find particularly surprising... is a dystopian
nightmare.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So how did we arrive at this point?
Well, despite<a href="http://www.plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing">
a long history of questionable police conduct which should not be
forgotten or overlooked</a>, it seems to me that the situation in
these regards was changed dramatically by the terrorist attacks of
September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2001. At that point, the “drug war”
(which was already in full force) merged with the immediately
emergent “war on terror.” And officers who served as foot
soldiers in the drug war, now also became domestic soldiers
ostensibly fighting the more overt threat of terrorism.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As borders were locked down and the TSA
essentially turned airports into military checkpoints, the same
mentality which drove those developments crept into local police
departments. As the U.S. military was equipped and sent to fight
overseas, a similar war footing was put into place domestically. New
agencies like the DHS were created and these aggressive and heavily
armed modern agencies had <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/04/18/150805767/stories-put-spotlight-on-nypd-surveillance-program">an
influence upon the civilian police forces which they worked with</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But while it may be somewhat reasonable
to expect the hideout of a known terrorist cell to be raided by a
heavily armed swat team, it's much less reasonable to expect <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/the-rise-of-the-swat-team-in-american-policing.html?_r=0">heavily
armed swat teams</a> to bust down the doors of low level criminals
who are suspected of relatively minor offenses. And while it may
make some sense to thoroughly examine people flying on commercial
jets, when that same practice is used in the cities against random
citizens walking down the street... it's a more direct and obvious
affront to freedom.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When the police arbitrarily demand to
see identification and frisk people on the flimsiest of pretenses...
that's something that formerly, in the not-so-distant past, was
equated to living in Stasi Germany or the Soviet Union. The ability
to walk down the street without being randomly accosted by agents of
the state was part of what was meant when people used to say that the
United States was “a free country.” The fact that the USA didn't
have gulags was cited as a positive in comparison to the USSR. But,
now, “<a href="http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices">stop
and frisk</a>” is normalized policy in America's largest city and
the United States has the largest prison population in the world –
both in total numbers and per capita.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After 9/11, a lot of people claimed
that the Al Qaeda terrorists hated us (citizens of the United States
as a whole) “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PKRHgmHzK0">because
of our freedoms.</a>” The idea being that the Islamic
fundamentalists wanted to spread their policy of strict Sharia law –
dress codes enforced, use of various substances controlled, etc..
But if that's the case, and I only mean this with the slightest
degree of hyperbole, then the NYPD is Al Qaeda's greatest ally. It
is the NYPD, as a singular entity, which most directly limits the
freedom of Americans. If your pants are too baggy or saggy (as is
the fashion with inner-city youth) then you will quite possibly draw
their attention and be stopped, frisked, and questioned. If you use
substances which the law says is verboten, then the NYPD will crack
down upon you. If you steal... they may not cut off your hand, but
they may very well start a process which will cause you great and
lasting hardship – particularly if you were ever caught committing
other sins like smoking pot or other drugs. This is before we even
start to examine <a href="http://gothamist.com/2010/03/03/cop_claims_nypd_quota_is_20_summons.php">the
supposed justice of issuing costly tickets for minor infractions</a>
like jaywalking or parking inappropriately.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But when proponents of the NYPD read
this... it's unrealistic to expect introspection or calm reflection.
Rather, I would expect indignant rage. Instead of engaging in
self-examination of their role in what America has become, I would
expect deflection and the insistence upon the necessity of strict law
and order. Which, again, is precisely what Islamic fundamentalists
want.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When Eric Garner was killed after
breaking up that fight, he wasn't acting under the auspices of Jihad.
And even if he was selling loose cigarettes (which is actually in
question), he did not deserve to be accosted in the way he was. He
certainly did not deserve to be choked to death. In a more rational
society which valued freedom, if we were to accept some token
presence of police, this is how I would have expected Eric Garner to
be addressed by the police on the fateful day of his death: “These
people here are saying you helped to break up a fight. Thank you for
that! We need more people like you around. You make my job that
much easier.” That would have been a reasonable, rational, and
sane response.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Instead, they got in his face for the
umpteenth time, leveled some bogus charges at him, ignored his pleas
to be left alone, and then choked him to death. And then, to add
insult to the fatal injury, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/breathe-easy-don-break-law-shirts-fire-article-1.2047689">a
police proponent had t-shirts printed up</a> which said things like
“Breathe Easy, Don't Break The Law.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Does this seem like somber reflection
to you? Does this give you the idea of institutional remorse? Of
course not. Rather, instead, the NYPD treated Eric Garner like a
prisoner at Abu Ghraib and essentially celebrated his death with
commemorative t-shirts as if they had just killed Bin Laden. But
Eric Garner wasn't a member of Al Qaeda. Eric Garner was just a
human being trying to get by. And now... life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness have all been stripped from him. He was killed
by people who hate us because of our freedoms.
</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-73413143754705927772014-11-25T12:17:00.000-08:002014-11-26T05:46:35.380-08:00The Guilty, The Innocent, And The Corrupt: Ferguson & The Case of Rodney Reed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I've recently learned about the case of
Rodney Reed. He is currently on death row in Texas for the murder of
Stacey Stites. The curious thing about this case is that the
victim's family is convinced of Reed's innocence and believes,
instead, that the actual murderer was her fiance, Jimmy Lewis
Fennell, Jr.. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At the time of Stacey Stites' death, Fennell was a
34-year-old police sergeant with the Georgetown, Texas, Police
Department. At the time of the murder Fennell was not adequately
investigated as a suspect. According to an article in the
Austin Chronicle, “<a href="http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-05-24/93214/" target="_blank">Police
never searched the apartment Stites and Fennell shared</a>, though it
was the last place she was reportedly seen alive, and they had
returned to Fennell the pickup truck she'd allegedly been driving the
morning she disappeared before thoroughly processing it for
evidence.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Since the murder of Stites and the conviction of
Rodney Reed, <a href="http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2014-04-30/rape-victim-believes-rodney-reed-is-innocent/" target="_blank">Sergeant Jimmy Lewis Fennell, Jr. confessed and has been convicted of raping a young woman (which he did while on duty)</a>. The victim of that attack, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_W8szly7S0#t=236" target="_blank">in an interview</a>, discussed how he had casually raped her in a calm sadistic manner. She
also explains how <i>Fennell was the responding officer when she
immediately called 911 after the attack</i>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After the conviction of Fennell
(sentenced to 10 years and scheduled for release in 2018), and during
the subsequent appeal of Rodney Reed, <a href="http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2009-05-01/774702/" target="_blank">a pattern of violent behavior by Fennell against other women</a>
was revealed.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
During Reed's trial for the murder of
Stacey Stites, evidence of their secret consensual relationship was
overlooked (which explained his DNA on her body) and, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/168349/rodney-reed-another-innocent-man-texas-death-row" target="_blank">Reed's trial lawyers did not adequately challenge the forensic investigator at the time</a>. Witnesses who could verify the secret consensual relationship
between Reed and Stites were not called during the trial, nor were
those who could have established an alibi for him regarding the time
of her death.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The case of Rodney Reed, in and of
itself, is a horrific nightmare reminiscent of a Dostoyevsky novel. And I encourage others to look into
the details of this case and spread the word about it in an effort to prevent
his execution by the state of Texas in January 2015. The world can
often be a cruel and unjust place but we should not always resign
ourselves to injustices and curl up in a ball – at the very least
we might each be able to play a small role in saving the life of an
innocent man.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At the same time... we should recognize
that <i>this case didn't not occur in a bubble</i>. The case of Rodney Reed
is part of deep systemic injustices which threaten us all.
Oftentimes there is too much of a disconnect between one story or one
issue and another. Making the connections between war and climate
change, for example, might be a tedious task even for those who are
regularly inclined to concern themselves about such matters.
However, I'd like to suggest that there are certain similarities in
the case of Rodney Reed which parallel the current events which are transpiring
in Ferguson, Missouri.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Just as the police overlooked a very
likely suspect in the strangulation death of Stacey Stites (most likely because that potential suspect, Fennell, was a fellow officer), it
seems that another officer of the law is now getting a pass in regard to the death
of another civilian. This isn't even to say that Darrell Wilson (the
officer who shot Mike Brown [an unarmed teenager]) is undoubtedly
guilty of murder according to the letter of the law. But <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side" target="_blank">regardless of what narrative you believe</a>, and regardless of which facts and
pieces of forensic evidence you believe, it is very rare for
prosecutors to not get an indictment when they seek charges against
someone. A grand jury seeking an indictment is not responsible for
determining absolute guilt or innocence. Rather, the grand jury is
tasked with determining whether or not there is evidence that a
crime <i>may</i> have been committed so that charges can be filed and
criminal proceedings, such as a trial, can the be conducted. And
whether or not you personally believe that Officer Darrell Wilson is
guilty... eyewitnesses saying that he shot Mike Brown while the teen
was trying to surrender (with his hands up) should have been enough for an indictment. A
bullet wound on the palm of Mike Brown's hand would also seem to
corroborate the eyewitness testimony.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Again, this isn't even to say that
Officer Darrell Wilson is undoubtedly guilty of murdering Mike Brown
without any <i>legal</i> justification whatsoever. But as Ben
Casselman recently pointed out... <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/" target="_blank"> it's incredibly rare for a prosecutor to not get an indictment when seeking charges against an individual</a>. <i><b>“Former New York state Chief
Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could
persuade a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.' The data suggests
he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal
cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand
juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.”</b></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
So what you see in the events surrounding both the deaths of Mike
Brown and Stacey Stites is <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop" target="_blank">a double standard being applied to police officers</a>. Regarding the murder of Stacey Stites the police failed to
adequately investigate one of their own despite obvious reasons to do
so -- and in the death of Mike Brown you see the failure of the state to
even indict the officer involved <i>despite eye witness testimony and
forensic evidence which suggests he acted inappropriately</i>.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
When normal members of society who are not members of law enforcement
are potentially involved in a crime... the book gets thrown at them –
sometimes even when they are innocent. But when law enforcement
officers are potentially involved in a crime they are frequently
given a pass. This is systemic beyond merely the two specific instances
mentioned in this article. <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/" target="_blank"> Law enforcement officers commit egregious crimes on a daily basis all across the United States</a>. If they are
somehow caught their punishment often consists of <a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/officer-who-killed-my-son-got-3-days-paid-leave-then-he-tried-take-part-killer-cop" target="_blank">paid leave and/or a transfer to a different department somewhere else</a>. And perhaps the worst part about this
is that current officers undoubtedly see this pattern of <i>justice</i>. They see that
they are above the law – and that in itself might be a corrupting
factor. Perhaps worse still... blossoming young psychopaths have an
ideal career choice put in front of them.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Mind you, the problem of systemic and rampant abuse of power by the police is only one part of the larger problems
facing modern society in the United States. The legally justified
violence committed by the state is a problem which exceeds the brazenly excessive
criminality of police officers. The prison-industrial complex itself
is problematic.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We need justice in Ferguson, we need justice for #RodneyReed, and we need to abolish the prison-industrial
complex. <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/03/infiltration-surveillance-brutality.html" target="_blank">As long as the police state remains intact it will be much more difficult to address any other problems in our society</a>.
</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-8231430434016291062013-05-10T03:10:00.000-07:002015-04-30T22:31:30.828-07:00Problems With Genetic Engineering & Genetically Modified Organisms (A Basic Overview Of The Issues)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<b>Public Relations & Political
Influence</b>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The controversy surrounding genetically
modified organisms has persisted as the agricultural biotech industry
has continued to promote its creations around the world.
Unfortunately, many people still do not understand the issues
relating to genetic engineering and the products of that process.
The ignorance surrounding this subject can largely be credited to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/may/14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia">the PR efforts of corporate agribusiness</a>. These PR efforts have been so
successful that at this point in time it can very difficult to engage
in honest civil discussion about the issues related to genetic
engineering and genetically modified organisms.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A popular accusation used against the
opponents of GMO technology is that they are the “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html">climate change deniers of the left</a>.” This dismissive accusation, while quite
cleverly crafted, entirely misses the substance and reality of the
issues at hand. For one thing, it serves to inaccurately classify
the opponents of GMO technology as leftists. This serves to
marginalize them along the arbitrary lines of a left/right political
dichotomy and casts the issue in a political light which is largely
irrelevant. But suffice it say that it's not just leftists who
oppose this technology. The next attribute of this phrase, equating
them to “climate change deniers,” also serves to create another
false parallel which can potentially serve to divide people. People
on the right side of the political spectrum don't want to be seen as
sympathizing with an issue of “the left” and informed people of
any political persuasion do not want to be equated with any sort of
climate change denial. But the reality of this accusation is that it
obfuscates the real issues at hand.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Unlike the fossil fuel industry (which
has funded climate change deniers and which sponsors PR campaigns
along those lines), the agricultural biotech industry has been very successful with its PR campaign. This is partly because the separation between fossil fuel extraction and the science of
climatology is very distinct at the academic level. Corporate
agribusiness, on the other hand, has long played a direct role in the
financing of agricultural science departments on university campuses
around the world. Because of this, any criticism of corporate
biotech can limit access to scholarships, internships, and the
general funding behind any agricultural department. And <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/monsantos_college_strangehold/">this conflict of interest</a> will naturally effect the general attitude in
such departments about any criticism of GMO technology.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Beyond the direct funding of
agricultural departments at various universities, and the consequential
influence gained thereby, is the issue of <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/feature/companies_put_restrictions_on_research_into_gm_crops/2273/">scientific obstruction promoted by corporate agribusiness</a>. Because the biotech industry has
been allowed to patent the gene sequence of its GMO creations, it is
legally allowed to restrict any and all 3<sup>rd</sup> party testing
of those creations. This not only <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-seeds-20110213">limits the ability to conduct third party tests</a> (under the penalty of resulting lawsuits), but it
also serves to delegitimize critical 3<sup>rd</sup> party testing as
being not only illegal but, thereby, somehow unethical. Mind you, this
restriction is on top of the limited focus likely to be found in
tests conducted by universities sponsored by corporate agribusiness.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The commodification of food is a
profitable endeavor. The profits derived thereby are what allow the
biotech industry to wield influence over the university system. But
these profits also afford corporate agribusiness <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto#Political_Contributions">great influence over the government</a> – which is why these corporations were allowed to patent living
organisms in the first place (and why they are allowed to legally
limit testing of those organisms). In addition to making large
donations to the campaigns of prominent politicians, <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/news.cfm">corporate agribusiness has also facilitated the appointment of high level officials who are sympathetic to their goals</a>. This influence over
the government can also be considered part of their PR campaign which
serves to legitimize their activities.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
All said... corporate agribusiness has
a firm hold over the university system and the poltical/legal system.
And this powerful influence is in addition to high-powered PR
campaign which is used to dismiss the notion of any problems related
to the creation and implementation of genetically modified
organisms.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Scientific Issues Related to
Genetic Engineering</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another notion which has been
popularized by proponents of genetic engineering is that the process
used to create genetically modified organisms is equivalent to
natural selection and selective breeding. This is a simplistic
falsehood which appeals to members of the lay public who do not
understand the process of genetic engineering. The relatively slow
evolutionary process used by selective breeding (which farmers and
gardeners have used for centuries) is not at all the same as the
process of genetic engineering (which can create organisms that would
never naturally occur without the process of genetic engineering).
Cross-pollinating slightly different breeds of tomatoes, for
instance, is not the same thing as introducing gene sequences from
bacteria or other species into those tomatoes. The latter can create
an organism which would otherwise never manifest in the natural
world and usually genes from several different species are used in the process.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Arguably, the creation of any
particular GMO isn't necessarily problematic in itself. However, it
is impossible to know how a GMO crop with traits from another species
will interact with the natural world. For example, corn engineered with genes
from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis">Bacillus thuringiensis</a> (BT corn) <i>will not necessarily behave in
the same was as corn which is merely grown in the presence of
Bacillus thuringiensis</i> (<a href="http://www.vegetablegardener.com/item/5344/bacillus-thuringiensis-a-natural-and-safe-microbial-pesticide">which serves as a naturally occurring pesticide</a>). When this GMO corn is released into the wild it serves
as <i>a new source of Bacillus thuringiensis which is delivered to pests
in a different way and which spreads in a different manner</i>. In this
case we are looking <a href="http://ctnofa1982.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-reason-to-avoid-gmos-bt-toxin.html">at GMO which may cause pests to develop a higher resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis</a> or may cause an imbalance in
the ecosystem when the number of pests vulnerable to Bacillus
thuringiensis is reduced. Essentially we are talking about the
creation and dissemmination of an invasive species.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Because limited laboratory testing (or
isolated testing in study fields) can not, by definition, replicate
the conditions of the broader natural world... it is unknown what
effect any particular GMO will have upon the biosphere until it is
released and starts cross-pollinating with naturally occurring
species. On a related note, because a gene sequence can effect very
many different attributes, it is often unclear precisely what effect
a paticular gene will have (if it is expressed at all) when
introduced into a species which is very different from the species
from which it was taken.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Biological Dangers Posed To
Mammalian Health</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For some of the reasons already
mentioned, implentation of a “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a>” (which is
already required in some places) is advisable. This principle is
related to issues of public health and is described as follows:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i>“The precautionary principle is a
moral and political principle which states that if an action or
policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to
the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm
would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would
advocate taking the action. But in some legal systems, as the
European Union Law, the precautionary principle is also a general
principle of law. This means that it is compulsory. The principle
aims to provide guidance for protecting public health and the
environment in the face of uncertain risks, stating that the absence
of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to
postpone measures where there is a risk of serious or irreversible
harm to public health or the environment."</i>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
With that in mind, it should be pointed
out that some evidence has already suggested that GMO products have posed a
health risk to mammalian health. This should be understood at a
basic level since organisms can be manipulated by genetic engineering
to have a wide variety of traits (positive or negative). Were
someone so inclined, they could even genetically engineer an
intentionally destructive organism. But before issues of such
malicious intent is the issue of potential mistakes and the inherent
limits of laboratory testing for an organism which will be released
and interact with the natural world.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In 1989 <a href="http://psrast.org/demsd.htm">a dietary supplement genetically engineered by the Japanese corporation Showa Denko killed 37 people</a> (at least) and seriously disabled thousands of others. It
is widely believed by many researchers that the recombinant DNA
process produced dangerous enzymes which were not noticed in
pre-market testing. Showa Denko eventually paid out over $2 billion
in damages because of this incident.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In 1996 it was discovered that <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103">a gene from Brazil nuts was introduced into soybeans via genetic engineering</a>. Subsequent consumption
of those soybeans could have proven fatal to people with allergies to
Brazil nuts. This risk was not initially noticed in animal testing. While
this particular project was fortunately terminated in time, it should
be pointed out that, if a GMO allergen like the one just mentioned was released into the environment,
cross-contamination of related plants becomes a risk. Since a wide
variety of genes from a wide variety of species are utilized in the
genetic engineering process, this is part of the reason that many
people want GMO foods labeled as such.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Various studies have suggested other
health risks posed by the introduction and consumption of GMO
products. Unfortunately, the aforementioned restrictions upon
testing and the control of academia by the agricultural bio-tech
industry limits their scope and criticizes fiercely any health risks
presented by independent researchers.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="authname_N30f30200N5fc138d0"></a><a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="baff1"></a>
In 2012 Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini did an extensive study upon
“<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637">Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize</a>” which appeared in the peer-reviewed
journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (Volume 50, Issue 11, November
2012, Pages 4221–4231). This study, found that (from the
abstract):
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="section_abstract"></a><a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="sp0010"></a>
<i>"The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified
maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and
Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in
rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than
controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male
groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the
pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large
mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the
pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal
balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males,
liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This
pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron
microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also
generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier.
Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic
deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered
parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the
non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the
overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic
consequences."</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="authname_N30f30200N5fc138d01"></a><a href="http://draft.blogger.com/null" name="authname_N30f30200N5fc138d02"></a>
Despite using a methodology which exceeded the requirements
used by the government to approve GM crops for public consumption,
the study was broadly and aggressively attacked. Professor
Gilles-Eric Séralini had his academic reputation slandered and
actually<a href="http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=119"> won a court case against some individuals who attempted to discredit his research</a>. Despite contradicting an
academic and regulatory monolith, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini
<a href="http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=1">responded fully to the criticism leveled at his study</a>.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another problematic
issue related to genetically modified organisms is the <a href="http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-9-myth-genetic-engineering-will-deliver-more-nutritious-crops">potentially degraded nutritional value of these creations</a>. GMO crops are
generally not designed for increased nutritional content (despite
marketing propaganda to the contrary). Rather, they are primarily
designed to be resistant to various herbicides and pesticides which
are sold by the same corporations which sell GMO seeds. Because of
this, any potentially inferior nutritional quality of these GMOs
(which are mass marketed and sown broadly) can have a generally
negative effect on human populations. Combined with the fact that
these GMOs may cross-pollinate with other plants and possibly prove
to be invasive... and we could potentially have a very serious
problem as the majority of many staple crops become less nutritious.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
The
aforementioned complications are but a short list of problems related
to the impact of genetically modified organisms upon mammalian
health. More extensive lists are made available by organizations
which are strictly focused upon these issues.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Environmental
Dangers</b>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sadly, many people
still do not seem to grasp the notion that environmental degradation
poses a harm to human health and society. But any ill effects upon
the environment do potentially present very serious problems to
humans. And the notion that a certain amount of symbiosis between
eco-systems and the various lifeforms which comprise the biosphere
should not be overlooked or dismissed.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Since GMO crops are
sometimes designed to be resistant to certain herbicides, the
potential for them to cross pollinate with genetically similar wild
plants can bring about the manifestation of <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/superweeds-a-long-predicted-problem-for-gm-crops-has-arrived/257187/">“superweeds” which are immune to certain herbicides</a>. This can be problematic for all
farmers – whether they are growing GMO crops or not – and may
cause them to use more and stronger herbicides to protect their
fields. The increased use of herbicides (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/03/gmo-herbicides">which is already associated with the use of GMO crops</a>) is potentially harmful to the environment
as the chemicals get dispersed by runoff and effect areas outside the
field in which they were initially used.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Similarly, because
some GMO crops are sometimes designed with a built-in pesticide
(which is thereby presented to insects in a new manner and differing quantities) the potential for certain insects to evolve into
“superpests” which can no longer be managed by lower doses of
pesticides in fields which are not growing the GMO variety. Equally
problematic is the potential effects upon the whole of a “pest”
species which may actually serve a broader purpose in the biosphere
(by providing food to birds and other animals, for example). A pest
species which was already somewhat resistant to the pesticide may
also become more dominant and bring about ecological imbalance as it
flourishes to levels which were previously kept in check by other
“pests”.
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">These
“superweeds” and “superpests,” by themselves, present very
serious problems to the environment. Factor in the increased use of
agriculutral petro-chemicals frequently used in coordination with GMO
crops and more serious problems are presented. For example, a link
was recently established between <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/16-6">the mostly widely used class of pesticides</a>, “</span>neonicotinoids,” and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/catching-my-reading-ahead-pesticide-industry-confab">colony collapse disorder within bee populations</a>. This inspired <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/victory-for-bees-as-european-union-bans-neonicotinoid-pesticides-blamed-for-destroying-bee-population-8595408.html">an EU ban upon that class of pesticides</a> which is primarily used on GMO corn.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Promises, Socioeconomics, and The
Marketing of Genetically Modified Organisms</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Earlier in this article I wrote about
the public relations campaign and the political control wielded by
biotech corporations. However, more needs to be said about this.
The influence of these corporations extends beyond mere control of
the regulating bodies within the United States, control over American
universities, and their astro-turfing efforts using social media.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The corporations promoting the use of
genetically modified organisms are very wealthy and they have a huge
portion of the market share in regard to all things related to modern
agriculture. And, beyond the aforementioned methods of influence,
they make use of simple marketing to sell their products around the
world. Unfortunately, despite their carefully cultivated brand
images, <a href="http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/08/monsanto-leads-in-genetically-modified-agriculture-trails-in-e/">these large corporations are not always the most ethical</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Bio-tech corporations present their
creations as necessary to feed a growing population. And, therefore,
they present themselves as the preeminent humanitarians of our day.
However, their humanitarian claims ring hollow for a number of
reasons.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For one thing, <a href="http://www.gmfreeze.org/why-freeze/unnecessary-non-gm-works/">the diversity of natural/organic crops that already exists</a> is more than capable of
thriving in broad range of climates and provide at least as much
nutritional value as the genetically engineered varieties. But as
many people know, the primary cause of malnourishment in this world
has nothing to do with a lack of nutrition in organic crops but,
rather, with <a href="http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#What_are_the_causes_of_hunger">the logistics surrounding distribution and control over food supplies</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Biotech corporations exacerbate these
latter issues by patenting their GMO seeds and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/supreme-court-monsanto_n_2720057.html">prohibiting farmers from saving seeds</a> from the current crop to plant again next year (a
practice as old as agriculture itself). This is all above and beyond these corporations <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/21/1224761/farmers-insurance-sued-by-corporations/">suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by GMO crops</a> (either
through spillage or cross-pollination).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Beyond all of that, the GMO crops being
promoted have often <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html">failed to achieve promised yields</a>. So when
farmers are locked into buying GMO seed (either because of cross contamination or monopolized private markets) they are in a serious
economic and legal bind if future yields fall, if herbicides and
pesticides cease being as effective, or if other environmental
conditions change. In India this has created the situation in which
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html">over 270,000 farmers have committed suicide during the last 15 years</a> –
after their GMO crops have failed or they were unable to purchase new
seed for the coming year.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In regard to claims about increased
yields associated with GMO crops, it should be pointed out that
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/feb/16/india-rice-farmers-revolution">record-breaking yields have recently been achieved using organic crops and farming methods</a>. The whole promise of the “green
revolution,” which involves heavy use of chemical herbicides &
pesticides (along with monoculture planting), ought to be seriously
questioned. While the broader issue of the “green revolution”
is slightly beyond the intended scope of this article, it is strongly
related in terms of agribusiness influence, and it's problems are
exacerbated by the implementation of GMO technology. (As with many of
the issues and problems discussed in this article, I'd recommend
studying the works of <a href="http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/">Vandana Shiva</a> for information about all these
subjects.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Big Picture</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Biotech corporations have made very
effective use of their power and influence. Many people remain
ignorant of the basic issues surrounding genetic engineering and
genetically modified organisms. Part of the problem is the
complexity of these issues. People do not understand the basic
difference between genetic engineering and traditional breeding
programs. People do not consider that a GMO with a built-in
pesticide may create problems down the line – even if the pesticide
initially works to protect a particular crop. People are unaware
about the limitations of controlled laboratory testing as opposed to
real world application. People are even unaware about the generally
low standards required to have a particular GMO crop formally
approved for the market. And these are but the simplest and most
recognizable problems associated with this technology. When we to
start discussing deeper, more problematic issues associated with
genetic engineering... the ignorance becomes almost palpable. Most
people, for example, are unaware that<a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/should-recipe-engineered-bird-flu-potent-enough-kill-millions-ever-be-published"> this technology can be used maliciously and effectively weaponized</a>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For any claim about anything
(scientific, spiritual, or otherwise) you can find people disputing
those claims – and all the moreso if there is a source of funding
for anyone disputing those claims (or if there is some other personal
interest for an idividual to do so). But just because a subject may
seem to have many proponents in favor of it, even seemingly impartial
academic proponents, does not mean all arguments are equal, apply critical thought, or get presented earnestly. Anyone can can
cherrypick studies, buy off universities, the government, and the
media – but that does not mean their position is justified,
well informed, or presented for reasons other than personal gain and
profit. Nor does any amount of parroting by the lay public prove
otherwise.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The issues in regard to genetic
engineering must be looked at individually, collectively, and
critically. And they must not be looked at myopically but, rather,
with the broader long term implications in mind.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But, recently, <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129257471016420.html">attempts to merely have GMO foods labeled as such have been shut down with millions of dollars coming in from the biotech corporations to oppose that action</a>. Even the right to know what you are eating is denied to many
people. They don't know if they are eating an apple or if they are
eating a GMO apple engineered with genes from a bacteria and a pig.
At the very least... Hindus, Jews and Muslims might want to know
about such a thing – not to mention vegetarians. And, of course,
all the people who have other issues with GMO crops might want to
know as well. The right to know what you are eating should be
fundamental.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Really though... the issues related to
GMO crops extend far beyond merely knowing if the food you are eating
is genetically engineered or not. And this is why protest movements
have risen in opposition to this technology and the corporations
which promote it. <i>(In fact, an <a href="http://occupy-monsanto.com/tag/march/">international day of protest against Monsanto has been organized for May 25th, 2013</a> at
locations around the world – including most state capitols in the
United States.)</i> I encourage everyone to get involved with the protest movement against GMO crops and biotech corporations. Do your own
research on this topic, spread the useful information that you find,
and help counter the incessant propaganda and misinformation spewed
forth by the agricultural biotech corporations.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-1852642675446870892013-05-02T15:50:00.000-07:002013-05-10T17:16:33.656-07:00re: Did FBI Focus on Controversial Stings Distract from Pursuit of Tsarnaev Before Boston Attacks? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nvUhFUrGIn4" width="425"></iframe>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The question I still have is whether or not the FBI merely surveilled and questioned these particular individuals involved with the Boston Marathon bombing. As suggested by this video (from DemocracyNow!), the FBI often doesn't stop there and will sometimes coax their targets into some sort of highly illegal and/or dangerous action (so that they may then be preemptively arrested). But if a target seemingly declines to act upon whatever suggestions an agent proposes to them... they still may be inspired by those suggestions and later act alone along those lines. I find this to be problematic.<br />
<br />
We know that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was reported to U.S. officials by the Russian government. We know that he was
under surveillance at some point. And we know that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10008004/Boston-bomber-arrested-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-was-questioned-by-FBI-in-2011.html">he was questioned by the FBI</a>. But we also know that the FBI often does more than that.
We know that they have supplied food, shelter, alcohol,
jobs, plots, and materials to their targets in the past. But in this instance we are to believe that they stopped short of following through with any more engaging tactics? No attempt was made to send in an undercover operative to casually "befriend" this particular suspect? No inciteful or provocative language was used by any such agents under these conditions? <br />
<br />
<i><b>This <u>is not</u> to suggest that the Boston Marathon bombing was some sort of a "false flag" operation or that the government intended for the Tsarnaev brothers to carry out this attack.</b></i> However... I think it is reasonable to wonder about the targeted individuals whom the government has tried to incite into action but who, nevertheless, seemingly, don't take the bait. What sort of ideas for future action might these individuals be given by government agents? Should it ever be the government's role to suggest or promote any sort of terrorist plot -- even one that it plans to thwart? Where would a line be drawn in these matters? And if targeted individuals later commit terrorist attacks, after being inspired by
provocative agents, doesn't the government have some responsibility for
their actions? <br />
<br />
More information along these lines have been <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/">written about by Glenn Greenwald</a>. I encourage people to read his thoughts on such matters. </div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-60125065176086696822013-03-27T12:46:00.000-07:002013-03-27T12:46:03.645-07:00Writing, Ideology & Mass Communication In Techno-Industrial Society<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Originality, accuracy, and clarity can
be hard things to measure in terms of the written word. Originality
is always bound to some degree with the familiar. Accuracy, while
sometimes easier to assess, is rarely complete and can still lead us
to faulty conclusions. Clarity is largely dependent upon the ability
of any readers to comprehend, relate to, and think reasonably about
whatever is being presented to them. These three aspects comprise
but a general shortlist of problems a writer may face when trying to
compose something of worth and interest to the broader reading
public.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Underlying political and ideological
tendencies, which are engrained in the general public, further serve
to restrict a writers ability to find and captivate an audience. The
promotion of certain ideas, right or wrong, can even be dangerous to
writers who promote them. People have been burnt at the stake and
put before firing squads because of their ideas.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
More commonly problematic is simply the
inability of writers to adequately reach a receptive audience. On
the simplest level this could sometimes be due to a writers limited
access to a suitable medium. However, even having access to modern
tools of mass communication does not guarantee that the message being
produced will reach a broad or receptive audience. The reasons for
this are many.
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The most common barrier to gaining an
audience is often just a simple matter of finances and resources.
Most people can't afford a printing press or the distribution network
required to broadly distribute hard copies of their work. Even in
this Internet age of blogs it helps to have financial resources
dedicated to the promotion of your work on the world wide web.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Just as traditional publishers have
long had to compete for an audience in a world of pulp and pablum, a
similar problem exists for online publishers. In fact, it's probably
much easier for various forms of quality web content to get lost
amidst the nearly infinite number of other web pages – E-pulp, if you
will.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The magnification of extremes when
comparing the problems of traditional pulp with E-pulp may also be reflective of the
types of focus (and the amount of critical thought) which is
demonstrated in mass society. In smaller populations it's easier to
reach a larger percentage of that population by using almost any
means of communication. One can discuss their ideas directly with
their neighbors, those ideas can be directly examined on their
merits, and useful ideas can spread from village to village in a
similar manner. In techno-industrial mass society, however, it is
actually more difficult to reach a large percentage of the overall
population – and almost every message is always competing with a
nearly infinite number of equally amplified messages. Beyond one way
consumption of television programming (where truly oppositional
debate is non-existent), with online discourse most people end up
addressing a faceless crowd which is prone to arguing against any
position by using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies">one logical fallacy after another</a>. And while
messages can be distributed via Facebook or <a href="https://twitter.com/nihilozero">Twitter</a>, most messages on
those systems, regardless of quality, will be lost in the shuffle of
mundanity – and those mediums do not really lend themselves well to
comprehensive analysis.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But the difficulties of mass
communication in the modern age are not merely because the population
is so large, nor because every voice and message is amplified. There
is an underlying ideology which guides and directs modern
techno-industrial society. It is related to the underlying idea that
has caused the population to explode. And while the underlying
ideology of technological progress and naked materialism has
persisted throughout the population boom, both the capability and
desire for critical thought has been blunted by those with the most
power.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As wealth and power has become more
concentrated... those with that power have gained access to more
effective tools which are used to maintain the underlying ideology of
technological progress and control. They use these tools for
distraction and obfuscation by filling people with consumeristic
dreams or by promising them pie and the sky after they've died.
Voices of reason are subsequently mocked at the behest of the
powerful or buried under the mundane trivialities of our
techno-industrial consumer society.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The powerful have long dictated the underlying ideology which is responsible for the current state of affairs in which we find ourselves. This ideology has led to one
genocide after another. A billion people currently suffer from
malnutrition because of this ideology. Because of this ideology,
environmental degradation is responsible for the current mass
extinction of species. And anthropogenic climate change threatens to
potentially destroy the ability for humans to live on this planet –
because of the dominant underlying ideology. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery">This is the ideology that the powerful have engrained into the masses</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Even those individuals who recognize
some of the overt negative effects of this ideology often do not
realize the underlying aspects – which they consequently maintain
and promote. We have been manipulated into believing the biggest of
lies. These lies have formed the framework of our cultural truths
which we take for granted – in much the same way that certain
populations have believed that the Earth was flat or that
authoritarian dictators were benevolent rulers. Human beings, like
so much livestock, have been domesticated in a manner which will lead
to their slaughter. A hackneyed cliché, to be sure, but an accurate
one.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden00.html">As Thoreau wrote</a>, we are “hacking at
the branches of evil” while failing to strike at the root. In
general, many people do actually recognize many of the overt problems
we face and the overt injustices perpetrated against specific groups.
Unfortunately, we often fail to see the underlying system of control
and we don't recognize our engrained ideological biases. This is
what leads us to focus on rather superficial issues, or singular
issues, while the whole world is going to hell in a proverbial
handbasket. This is what guides people into having faith in a
thoroughly corrupt system and it inspires them to continue supporting
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/iZkRZPK.jpg">the evil of two lessers</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Most protest movements in the modern
age, and I'm speaking particularly of the United States here, have
been spayed and neutered. Even manifestations of mass protest have
been largely turned into ineffectual parades. Effective protests
have been equivocated with passivity, allowing yourself to get beaten
or arrested, and/or boycotting product A in favor of product B.
Right wing notions of law and order inform the opinions of most
people about how protests should be responded to by the government.
Unjustified wars rage, the banks rob the masses of their savings, and
the biosphere is ravaged... but many people never get truly outraged
or indignant until someone smashes the window of a bank. And these
feelings are inculcated into society with the most advanced
communication networks – by design and at the behest of the
powerful.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Furthermore, on the subject of protest
proponents, I've noticed a great deal of <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2012/04/open-letter-to-derrick-jensen.html">duplicity and hedging</a>
amongst those who are propped up in the media as paragons of radical
thought. These are usually <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/03/noam-chomsky-and-mild-reformist-tactics.html">formal academics with a foot in the door of the power structure</a>. These are people who typically lead <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2012/02/folly-of-christopher-hedges.html">a comfortable bourgeois life selling books and going on speaking tours</a>.
The fact that they ever support any form of protest against the
power structure endears them greatly to a public which is starving
for any plan of resistance. Unfortunately, the adoration they
receive blinds their supporters to any inconsistencies, or
ineffectual aspects, which may be part of their larger program. The
cult of personality which surrounds these individuals allows them to
effectively serve as the loyal opposition. In moments of social
upheaval these people can be propped up as effectively pacifying
voices. Should social upheaval ever lead to a qualitative
revolution... they will then be presented as the engineers of that
upheaval and their enacted programs would not really be that much
different from the system currently in place. And, therefore, it wouldn't be a truly qualitative revolution. This is all assuming they
even have any real faith in their own programs.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The mass of humanity has been
cultivated to serve the aristocratic elite. Pop culture
revolutionaries have been propped up for the purposes of counseling
passivity (or maybe backstabbing). <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-system-currently-in-place.html"> The thoroughly corrupt and destructive system in place</a> is presented as only needing superficial reforms. The underlying ideology of techno-industrial mass society
is a self-destructive monolith – which threatens to take humanity
down with it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However... this article is not being
presented to promote hopelessness. The system will, in fact, eat
itself (one way or another, with or without any help). The deep
ideological biases of a society can, and will, change. Hope, as they
say, does indeed spring eternal. A hard or total crash is not
inevitable.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is within our power as individuals
to reverse the negative trends, tendencies, and truisms presented in
this article. We can undermine the values of techno-industrial mass
society. But we must recognize the deep pernicious roots of the
dominant ideology if we wish to stop it. Our comprehensive
resistance must be founded in a deep understanding of the system we
are revolting against. The scale of revolutionary activity must
match the scale of the problems we face. And while we must keep in
mind our long term goals, we must not be idle in making strides to
reach those goals. <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2009/10/revolution-is-not-just-word-but-why.html"> Practical strategies can be formulated and put into action</a>. We do not need to remain <a href="http://i.imgur.com/mvmq2YI.gif">passive victims of a value-free postmodern ethos</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-68739440619955348202013-03-20T16:15:00.000-07:002013-03-20T16:15:30.435-07:009/11 Conspiracies: For The Sake Of Full Disclosure<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Many people who have spoken with me in
regard to the 9/11/2001 attack are well aware that I am often
perturbed and disgusted by many of the more outlandish conspiracy
theories associated with the events of that day. I've also commented
in many forums about the subject <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/19xlcn/i_need_help_debunking_911_conspiracy_theories/c8sevuv">for the purposes of debunking the wilder theories</a>. However... my disdain for the wilder theories, and
my belief that the operation itself was in fact carried out by
Islamic fundamentalist commandos, is not to suggest that I don't
believe in any possible complicity on behalf of any particular
members of any government.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Someone recently called me into
question about this in regard to an old blog post (which I had
actually written [as a Myspace post] before I started this blog in
2006). Since I did add that post to my blog, and because I try to
stand behind what I've submitted herein, I now feel obliged to take
some time to clarify my position.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the old blog post, entitled “<a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2006/08/911-reality-conspiracy-theory.html">9/11
Reality (Conspiracy THEORY Unnecessary)</a>,” I pointed out what I
feel are some very interesting connections between parties that are
in some way connected to the attacks. While the writing in that post
and its title is a bit ham-fisted, and while I feel that my writing
style has improved since I wrote that post, I
nevertheless feel that there are some dubious political connections
which were outlined therein. I still find it interesting that one of
Osama bin Laden's brothers, Shafiq bin Laden, was at the White House
on the morning of 9/11. I find it interesting that the head of ISI
was in a meeting with the future head of the CIA on the morning of
9/11. And I also find other connections between the bin
Laden's and prominent western politicians to also be to quite
interesting.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And while these connections may be pure
coincidence... I don't think the personal, political, and financial
connections outlined in my old post should be dismissed without a
second thought. The subsequent wars after 9/11 allowed members of
the bin Laden family, in partnership with the western political
elite, to make hundreds of billions in profits after the attacks.
<a href="http://costsofwar.org/">Trillions of dollars were subsequently spent on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan</a>. And the political control gained by the parties
involved was not negligible. These are facts which I don't feel
should necessarily be seen as merely coincidental and fortuitous for
those parties.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At the same time... this is not an
outright accusation. I can't say with certainty what all of the
parties involved discussed in regard to any possible complicity with
the financing and facilitation of the 9/11 attacks. But it does not
seem out of the question that the aforementioned people might somehow
be indirectly involved with organizing the attacks. I sincerely
believe that<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology"> many of those involved at the highest levels of government are essentially psychopaths</a> and have very little regard for
the people whom they have control over. That is to say, the only
reasons they might not be involved with the events of 9/11 would be because they simply
didn't think of it first – or because they might have feared
getting caught.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
Were it not for the attacks of September 11th, the biggest story of the year in the U.S. would definitely have been the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal">collapse of the largest corporation in the world – Enron</a>. This was a scandalous event which was preceding even greater economic scandal that was to follow in the years after 2001.
It's questionable <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-628320.html">how much President George W. Bush knew</a> about the corruption of “Kenny Boy” Lay (as Bush referred to
him) which led to the collapse of Enron, but it seems likely that these
government officials would have had some idea of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession">the broader economic crisis brewing</a>. Once again, we're talking about <a href="http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1462">trillions of dollars</a> -- in this case
being redistributed from the government to the big banks and other corporations as part
of the various bailouts. With this kind of money at stake (beyond
the direct profits made off of the wars) the “war on terrorism,”
as a story and idea, served very well to keep people distracted and
rallying around the flag while <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/aig_and_the_big_takeover_matt">a veritable economic coup took place</a>.
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And again, while this is not direct
proof of anyone's particular involvement with the 9/11 attacks, the
vast economic corruption would have been a much harder story to put on the
back burner without the 9/11 attacks. Because of the media's focus
upon the “war on terrorism” many specific individuals were given
a much easier time in their corrupt efforts to accumulate wealth and
to wreck the global economy. If the general U.S. population hadn't
been made afraid of muslim extremists and <a href="http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/08/the-lies-that-led-to-the-iraq-war-and-the-persistent-myth-of-intelligence-failure/view-all/">the alleged threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...</a> they may have spent less time
rallying around the flag and more time up in arms about the various
economic scandals. But not only did the “war on terrorism” serve
as a frightening distraction, it also was used to justify the
increased militarization of police forces in the United States –
and this has had a lasting and continuing effect. So... 9/11 served
to both overshadow the brewing economic crisis <i>and</i> to strengthen the
state's hand at supressing any groups which might otherwise have been
organizing protests in the street against the economic corruption.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Many people may not be aware but,
before the events of 9/11, there was a growing anti-globalization
movement in the United States. Major protests were being held across
the country to oppose neo-liberal economic policies and market
deregulation. <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199401--.htm">NAFTA</a> was a very unpopular piece of legislation and
the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-9UQ_tqEY">WTO protest in Seattle '99</a> was the most aggressive U.S. protest in
many years. But any other protests along those lines were
effectively derailed by what was presented as a bigger threat to
people's livelihood and well being. The 9/11 attacks seriously
hampered the anti-globalization movement in the U.S. and any related
protests afterward would be met by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/24/how_the_feds_fueled_the_militarization_of_police/">a much more militarized police force</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So... while direct hard evidence is
lacking in regard to government involvement with the 9/11 attacks
(beyond a strong motive and a very limited degrees of separation between those
involved), I think it's safe to say that the U.S. government has
benefited and made good political use of the attacks which occurred
on September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2001. And I agree with the typical
9/11 conspiracy theorist in this latter regard. But this is circumstantial
evidence and the other notions presented by most 9/11 conspiracy theorists do not
focus upon that aspect in regard to any particular conspiracy.
Instead they often choose to focus on outlandish notions which may
actually serve to discredit the real underlying political aspects which
they might also sometimes mention in connection. This is similar to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4">a point often raised by RepresentativePress who points out that the stated motive of the 9/11 hijackers was to punish the United States for its support of Israel</a>. <i> (I don't dispute that this was the stated motive of the
hijackers themselves, but I believe it's quite possible that the hijackers may have
been manipulated into carrying out the attacks by people with
ulterior motives.)
</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Many of you may be familiar with the
more prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories. “The planes were
remotely controlled. The buildings were lined with explosives for a
controlled demolition. It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Et
cetera.” Most of these ideas can be easily dismissed with a basic
understanding of the obvious factors. And, frankly, it quickly gets
tiresome <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/19xlcn/i_need_help_debunking_911_conspiracy_theories/c8sevuv">pointing out the ridiculousness of such allegations</a>. But
the bigger problem is that they distract from the stated motives of
the hijackers and the noticeable benefit these attacks had for certain members
of various governments and the global aristocracy. They are consequently doing a great
disservice to those who simply do not understand why the 9/11 attacks might have occurred or how the government has abused its power since
the attacks. These, I feel, are the issues of utmost importance.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The 9/11 attacks upon the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon were carried out by fundamentalist Islamic commandos. But
the questions about precisely where they got their orders from, or
who ultimately was financing their operation, remains a mystery as
far as I'm concerned. And, honestly, I don't expect that these
questions will ever be answered with precise certainty. What's more
clear is that certain members of various governments profited greatly
in many ways from the 9/11 attacks. It's also clear that the bin
Laden family was personally connected with the Bush family. Al Qaeda
was connected with the ISI. And the ISI was connected with the CIA.
The subsequent implications, like them or not, are troubling. With trillions of dollars at stake, and massive political control to be gained, I do not discount the likelihood of a plainly unethical aristocracy being behind the 9/11 attacks.
</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-6171485679655675982013-03-15T11:07:00.000-07:002013-03-15T16:11:32.278-07:00Capitalism ≠ Anarchism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In recent years a ridiculous notion has
been promoted in the United States. It's the idea that the
philosophy of anarchism is compatible with the principles of
capitalism. Proponents of this proposed ideological merger call
themselves anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, or agorists. And
while anarchists around the globe may not believe in the seriousness
of those proposing the merger of these philosophies, I remind them
that the proponents we are talking about are primarily people within
the borders of the United States of America. This is the same land
that has also concocted the notion of “national anarchism” which
promotes racial segregation. These are concepts from “the land of
the free” – where more people are imprisoned in total numbers
(and per capita) than in any other nation. So, as absurd as it is, I
assure you that the idea of “anarcho-capitalism” is a real thing.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
From a historical perspective, along
the lines of traditional anarchist philosophy, any casual student of
the subject can tell you that anarchists and capitalists have always
opposed each other. The notion of private property has always been
anathema to anarchists. “Property is theft” has long been the
rallying cry of anarchists since Proudhon published his book by that
title. Since that publication, the differentiation between personal
property (used directly and frequently by it's owners for personal
and communal reasons) and private property (owned by an individual
who does not use the property directly and who generally profits off
of it usage by others) has been well established by anarchist
philosophers. Generally speaking, this distinction might be
explained by contrasting an artisan who lives above his shop and a
capitalist who owns numerous shops and profits off of the work being
done by others in those shops. This differentiation can be taken to
further extremes – primitive tribal people who only claim
particular items which they directly make use of and always keep with
them (such as a knife or a bow) as opposed to individual land owners
who own vast swathes of land (and who profit off of the work done by
others to extract resources from that land). But the bottom line is
that anarchists have always opposed the accumulation of private
property beyond that which is directly put to use by the owner on a
regular basis. This is a cornerstone of political anarchist
philosophy.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The so-called anarcho-capitalists,
however, have thrown the traditional anarchist concept of property
out the window. Having read some of their essays, and after having
questioned them in various forums, the broad consensus amongst them
seems to be that any individual should be able to own as much
property as they can buy, trade, or otherwise get a contract for.
According to them, it would be unethical to restrict the amount of
property (land or otherwise) which one could own. Any groups of
people who do not agree with the concept of contractually owning land
would be out of luck and would have no rights to the land. The
anarcho-capitalist owner, according to them, would be justified in
removing any individuals from the land which they owned. Primitive
tribes who lived in an area since time immemorial would have no right
to stay in an area if they did not have a contract and the formal
owner wanted them to move. Any means to remove such people would be
left at the pure discretion of the contracted land owner.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And not only would the individual land
owners have the final word in choosing who could come or go from the
land they've contractually claimed, but they also claim the absolute
right to do with that land whatever they choose. Vast swathes of
farmland could be laid fallow, rainforests could be clear cut, mining
operations could use the quickest, cheapest, and most environmentally
harmful means to extract any resources.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While most traditional anarchists would
generally be opposed to government oversight in regard to
environmental standards (and the government has largely been proven
corrupt and irresponsible in this regard), their disdain for
government involvement in such matters is conflated by
anarchocapitalists with the notion that reasonable environmental
protections could not be agreed upon by society and that
environmental protections are instead best left to the singular
owners of any land or resources. If a land owner wanted to pave over
Yellowstone or dam up the Mississippi, the only justifiable recourse
in such an event would be purely economic according to market
anarchists. Essentially, a boycott would be the only real recourse.
Of course, if the owner was wealthy and didn't care about any
boycotts (or if they were selling an essential commodity)... that
really wouldn't bother them in the slightest.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Additionally, anarcho-capitalists are
generally opposed to any notion of the commons which people could
share in some way without the existence of any particular owner. Any
and all beaches, for example, could be made private at the whim of
the owner. Any land could be restricted in this way. Tolls could be
set up arbitrarily or no passage could be allowed at all if the owner
desired to keep a particular population contained in a particular
area (creating borders). And again, as with any of the property they
owned, the owner could protect their property or remove trespassers
by any means they saw fit.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Lastly, with binding contracts being of
utmost importance in their society, the anarcho-capitalists would
defend the right of people to enter into contracts of indentured
servitude. Never mind the economic conditions which might compel an
unfortunate soul into signing such an agreement... a deal is a deal
and a contract is a contract.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
All of these attitudes about property
and land would, undoubtedly, lead to conflict. The de facto
capitalist ruler of any land or territory would have to take means in
order to protect their property from those who wanted to make use of
it any way prohibited by the current owner. Those opposing the
control of any particular land owner would include not only those
dissatisfied with wealth inequality (or those opposed to any
environmental degradation being caused), but also other land owners
who might be intent upon claiming certain property by any means
necessary.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Private property owners intent upon
maintaining control over their property (and doing whatever they
pleased with it) would need some sort of military power in order to
continue doing so. This fact would lead to a sort of capitalistic
feudalism. Military alliances would probably arise, and some equilibrium might be reached to achieve peace between the feudalistic
land owners, but the issues of serfdom and revolt would be as
pronounced as ever. Overall, I believe it's this issue of feudalism
which undermines the position of the anarcho-capitalist more than
anything. It wouldn't go over well with many people.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The central idea of anarchism, of self
rule and opposition to those who would control and dominate others,
is not served by so-called anarcho-capitalists. The concentration of
wealth and property that is advocated by anarcho-capitalists allows
for a small minority of groups or individuals to maintain power and
control in very much the same way that they are currently allowed to
maintain power and control. The lack of a centralized government in
their system would not prevent quasi-governments, operating
essentially as kingdoms, from arising in their anarcho-capitalist
ideal. This is why anarcho-capitalists are not really anarchists at
all.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Capitalism, in any form, by its very
nature, leads to a focus upon accumulation of material wealth which
serves as a form of power. Anarchism, on the other hand, is
concerned with personal and collective freedom. And while
anarcho-capitalists would argue that the freedom to accumulate wealth
should not be infringed... that is a trick of semantics which
suggests that individuals should be allowed to control and dominate
others. But that notion is more aligned with other forms of
authoritarian power structures than it is with anarchism. If you
want the “freedom” to be a fascist... anarchists will always
oppose you. Capitalism is more akin to fascism than it is to
anarchism. Capitalism ≠ Anarchism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><i>Some discussion about this article is currently taking place here: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1adasj/many_of_you_will_undoubtedly_disagree_but_im/">http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1adasj/many_of_you_will_undoubtedly_disagree_but_im/ </a></i></span></div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-89459209840721384622012-12-27T01:54:00.002-08:002012-12-27T09:54:58.405-08:00Depression and Suicide Amongst Radicals and Anarchists<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="st">"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." — <i>William Gibson</i>.</span></blockquote>
<b>The Problem of Suicide: You Are Not Alone </b><br />
<br />
As the survivor of an arduous suicide attempt I've subsequently come to contemplate this subject a bit more than most. Throughout the years I've seen friends, family, and loved-ones take their own lives. Each time I hear of another suicide I am reminded not only of my own attempt, but also the attempts by those I've known. To be perfectly honest... my response is probably indicative of some PTSD. But I'm more than a decade removed from my major depressive episode and I feel that the subject of depression and suicide ought now be addressed. <br />
<br />
It should be pointed out that suicide is now <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120921123959.htm">a leading cause of death in the United States</a>. Amongst the young adults it ranks as the second or third leading cause of death (depending upon the specific age range examined). <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-22/india/32367655_1_lowest-suicide-rate-suicide-deaths-strategy-for-suicide-prevention">In other segments of populations around the world</a> it is also a primary cause of death. <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961910-2/fulltext">Economic factors</a> seem overtly connected with suicide <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/economic-crisis-triggers-wave-of-suicides-in-greece-a-850129.html">in many nations</a>. <a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/professions-highest-suicide-rates-dentistry-5855870.html">Certain professions</a> have a higher rate of suicide than others. And, for U.S. soldiers, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/suicides-eclipse-war-deaths-for-us-troops.html?_r=0">suicide has proven to be more deadly to them than combat</a>. This problem of suicide could accurately be described as a public heath crisis or an epidemic. <br />
<br />
While a variety of factors contribute to individual instances of suicide and the overall suicide rate, I believe that progressive radicals, anarchists, and social justice activists have somewhat unique psychological factors that can also come into play. Although they are probably just as likely to suffer from problems like social isolation or drug dependency, I believe that those who are informed about <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/10/small-part-of-what-it-is-that-inspires.html">the myriad of crises that humanity currently faces</a> are given an extra punctuation in terms of reasons to be dismayed. So, in addition to any personal problems they may have, <i>they are also aware that the world seems to be going to hell in a proverbial handbasket</i>. And while I personally believe that's a fairly accurate assessment of things, I don't advocate suicide as a response to this reality. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Life Under Siege</b><br />
<br />
Particularly for younger radicals, as well as for younger people in general, I think the idea that things can suddenly and dramatically change is forsaken. Since they haven't experienced as much of life, it may not be as clear to younger people that situations can, and do, often change. The world is not static and, as terrible as things may be overall, or as bad any particular personal situation may be, it's bound to change -- even if we're just talking about gaining a different personal perspective on things. We are all bound for new experiences, new insights, and new ways of looking at things. And, in your darkest hour, it should be remembered that the next hour may serendipitously be your brightest. Life undoubtedly can be, and often is, a struggle. However, as a radical, as a person who has a conscience and is informed, it behooves us all if you keep up the struggle. <br />
<br />
In a seeming paradox, life in nations under siege actually see suicide rates drop (WWII Britain, for example). And, if it might help you, perhaps you should consider that the entirety of the world today is somewhat under siege. I won't go into detail here again about <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/10/small-part-of-what-it-is-that-inspires.html">the numerous problems that humanity collectively faces</a> -- suffice it to say that there are serious problems in this world and each of us has our own thoughts about what needs to be changed and how that can happen. Life and truth and beauty are constantly under attack, and these are things worth fighting for -- things worth living for.<br />
<br />
When a progressive radical commits suicide it's equivalent to a fascist putting another notch in his rifle. It is equivalent to the war machine rolling its tank treads over another freedom fighter. This, I hope, is reason enough for many to avoid death at their own hands. <br />
<br />
<b>Don't Let The Bastards Grind You Down </b><br />
<br />
As radicals, people are often subjected to mockery and derision. Expressing concerns about the state of the world can often lead to plain ridicule. This mockery and scorn can come from any number of sources -- friends, strangers, family, or the media. And this derision can be, without a doubt, depressing. But while some individuals should perhaps to be held accountable for their ignorant insensitivity, I'd suggest that this phenomena of callous ignorance is just a subtle part of the system's overall psychological warfare -- which it wages every day on every front. <br />
<br />
The underlying nature of the system is to reduce empathy within the general population so that it can produce more mindless workers and consumers. It's subtle, but this is what allows modern society to continue down the unsustainable path that it is on. This is what allows bona fide psychopaths to attain the highest positions within the highest offices of the land -- be those governmental or business. The value-free attitude of a twisted post-modernism scoffs at sincere concerns about the world and it perpetuates more business as usual. <br />
<br />
And make no mistake... whatever the cumulative cause, psychological testing does show that <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528081434.htm">empathy levels in the United States have dropped dramatically</a>. Young people today, in general, are actually less empathetic than they were a generation ago. One can only imagine the social and psychological difficulties that a truly concerned bright young person must have today when dealing with a growing number of sociopathic peers! But these decent young people need to be aware that the problem is not with them. The problem is really not even the fault of their cold-hearted peers -- the problem is with the system that creates and rewards sociopaths. This is what needs to be recognized and this is why good-hearted people should not give up. Merely the continued existence of thoughtful and intelligent people is a strike against the system -- and that is why they should persist in an effort to undermine that system.<br />
<br />
For radicals though, the problem of persecution on a psychological level goes beyond just merely the day to day interactions with any numb or cold peers. <a href="http://studentactivism.net/2012/01/15/the-fbis-attempt-to-blackmail-martin-luther-king-into-suicide/">Martin Luther King himself was famously sent a letter urging him to commit suicide.</a> And although I don't specifically know how common this particular sort of tactic is... from personal experience I can tell you that such things still happen. When I was an outspoken young radical (with an overt tail) I had leaflets left on my doorstep promoting suicide "for the sake of the environment." And while I can't say for certain that this played a direct role in my own suicide attempt after the fact... it's possible that I may have missed similar psychological attacks directed towards me. <br />
<br />
This also relates to government infiltration and surveillance. It is clear that infiltration of activist circles continues today (<a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-informant-vegan-potluck/437/">perhaps more commonly than ever</a>). <i> But what subtle psychological effects does this infiltration have upon people?</i> Consider that you are likely to pick up on some level of insincerity amongst your peers. If you begin to tolerate insincerity, or dismiss it, you may come to consider it a relative norm. Or, on the other hand, you may avoid common social situations where you'll have to deal with insincere individuals. Either way... this is likely to have an negative effect on you. <i>And consider that it's not just you who is being subjected to this but, also, other sincere individuals will be subjected to the same situation and may respond by altering their normally good-natured manner of associating with people.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.whale.to/b/glick_b.html">In the 1960's</a> some radical organizations had some of their meetings populated primarily by undercover agents. Now, 50 years later, I see little reason to doubt that this may still often be the case. In fact, the problem may be much more acute. Infiltration and surveillance works as a psychological attack upon progressive radicals. It's psychological warfare. Psy-ops. <br />
<br />
I preceded this article with a quote from Willam Gibson, the dystopian science fiction writer, and I believe his quote has particular relevance to anarchists and other social justice advocates. If you fall into those categories, and if you are feeling depressed or having suicidal thoughts, consider that this may be exactly what was intended for you... by design. And, so, then, you should rethink your position. If this sort of thing makes you feel paranoid, well, that may be for the best if it keeps you alive. Besides, being paranoid in this world may often be the sanest frame of mind to have. But is it really paranoia if they want you dead? <i>And do you really think that the government and corporate interests never want any activists dead or that they don't work toward those very ends</i>? <br />
<br />
<b>You Are Empowered To Live And Control Your Own Life</b><br />
<br />
If your life has gone to shit and doesn't seem worth living... think again. You can actually be part of something bigger and better. You can change your personal life (habits, diet, "friends") and you can work toward being healthier and having a healthier world overall. Even simple changes in your life can alter your perspective and give you reason to live. Your depression may persist... but don't let it dominate you and control your life. I don't mean this all to sound like some hackneyed self-help cliche, but if that's what it takes to keep a few radicals alive... I don't care if that's how it sounds. There are simple truisms that remain true even if they are repeated a million times. <br />
<br />
I don't want any more sincere and good-hearted people to kill themselves. And, at the rate which we are losing them, and at the rate which they are being outnumbered, the world can't afford to lose any more. If you are contemplating suicide... use your intellect to contemplate something else. You are in control of your own life, your own mind, and your own activities -- you can make a positive difference in this world by staying alive. Even if you've never met them... there are people in this world who want you to be happy and want you to live. <br />
<br />
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-5336466901485558102012-12-01T05:35:00.000-08:002012-12-01T05:35:04.490-08:00The Stimulator, host of "It's the End of the World as We know it and I feel FINE," will be doing an AMA Monday. That's right slaves! The Stimulator, host of the most rad talk show on
the interwebs, "It's the End of the World as We know it and I feel
FINE," will be answering your questions in /r/AnarchistNews on the
morning of Monday, December 3rd, 2012, at 8am Central Time. <br />
<br />
If you're unfamiliar with the Stimulator's work, you can find episodes of the motherfuckin' show at <a href="http://submedia.tv/" target="_blank">SUBMEDIA.TV</a> and can you watch his excellent documentary, END:CIV, <a href="http://endciv.com/" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
So...
get your questions ready now! YOU KNOW he's got to have an excellent
recipe for tacos! And what's up with the "motherfuckin' tar sands?"
Where does he get all that top-notch riot porn?! <br />
<br />
Here's the link to the announcement on r/AnarchistNews: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchistNews/comments/143oro/the_stimulator_host_of_its_the_end_of_the_world/">http://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchistNews/comments/143oro/the_stimulator_host_of_its_the_end_of_the_world/</a>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-52902828867153610652012-11-16T14:44:00.000-08:002012-11-22T10:50:15.182-08:00What happened to the Long Haul & Slingshot?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A few years back I spent some time in
the San Franscisco Bay area and had the privilege of hanging out at
the Long Haul infoshop located in Berkeley, California. The infoshop
hosted discussions about various radical topics and had a large
library and meeting space where meals were occasionally served.
Zines, books, and novel t-shirts were sold there to help make ends
meet. And, of course, the Slingshot newspaper was published there
along with the Slingshot organizer (which is distributed broadly at
many other infoshops and independent bookstores). And, I'm sure,
many of the things I've described still take place there.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However, it should be noted that the
tone, tenor, and direction of the space (and particularly its
publication) has undoubtedly fluctuated somewhat over the years.
This is to be expected of such a public institution (as the prominent
issues of the day change and those involved with the space come and
go – bringing and taking various qualities or points of focus).
And, when the space was raided in 2008, that undoubtedly shook things
up. Since that incident... I imagine a certain hard-core has
probably stayed away from the infoshop while undercover operatives
have possibly filled the void or, at the very least, continued their presence.
In any case, a tamer crowd has probably comprised more of the
community since the raid.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
With those things in mind, I'd like to
make at clear that it is not my intention here to outright condemn
the Long Haul. It may still be serving as very valuable resource
within the broader anarchist milieu. But I must express my general
disappointment with the latest issue of Slingshot (<a href="http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?111001" target="_blank">issue #111, Autumn 2012</a>). And, with that disappointment, I must wonder who is hanging
out at the Long Haul and what the community surrounding the space is
like these days.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The first thing which drew my attention
in issue #111 was a critique of a recent Black Bloc which occurred in
San Francisco's Mission district. The piece, entitled <a href="http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0111003" target="_blank">“Black Bloc Breaks Windows, Fails To Make Impact,” written by Max Crosby</a>,
begins with a general assessment of gentrification and then turns
into a general critique of insurrectionary vandalism. It gears up
with a specific critique of the recent Black Bloc action:
</div>
<blockquote>
“<i>The people who did the April 30th
action made no subsequent effort to communicate their reasons for
indulging in mass vandalism, thus robbing their efforts of all
credibility. Evidently they said nothing because they had nothing to
say. Their mass vandalism spree could have been a foot in the door
for a larger message against the gentrification of the Mission in
particular and against capitalist society in general, but nothing
more was heard from them. With this lapse into characteristic
complacency and silence, in their passivity and juvenile ineptitude
the wannabe insurrectionary vandals handed a huge propaganda victory
to both the Mission's bourgeois invaders and to the corporate news
media, who were able to portray the event as an exercise in
self-indulgent adolescent nihilism.” </i></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There is so much wrong with this
assessment that I hardly even know where to begin.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
First of all, there isn't always a need
for those engaged in such an activity to overtly “communicate their
reasons for indulging in mass vandalism” and any lack of a
spelled-out explanation does not at all necessarily “rob their
efforts of all credibility.” Some actions may speak better for
themselves than you realize. If anyone is terribly concerned about
the interpretation then they can do their personal best in trying to
clarify or explain the action. Vandalism for a radical or
revolutionary purpose deserves to be publicly discussed and those who
didn't personally participate in the action should feel free to
try and explain what they think it means. If Max Crosby does have an
inkling about what the recent action was about, as the prose about
gentrification suggests, then they can communicate their
interpretation without demeaning the participants of the action. This
is a task that above-ground radical writers should readily be willing
undertake.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It is unjust to describe the members of
a Black Bloc, who actively destroyed bourgeois symbols of repression,
as lapsing into “characteristic complacency and silence.” To
assess their action as a failure because they didn't issue a
communique and because the media called them names... is ridiculous.
Again... actions can speak louder than words and the Black Bloc
participants have potentially set an example and presented a chink in
the system's armor – and sympathetic radicals can still publicly
interpret the significance of their action. If polite society wants
to describe the Black Bloc participants as “self-indulgent radical
nihilists,” that's to be expected – and I'd say it's fair trade
for getting their shit smashed. But why are supposedly sympathetic
writers, in a supposedly sympathetic journal, describing them in these terms?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At points in the article the author
seems to favor militant actions (as long as they are followed by some kind of transparently clear public statement), and even
suggests other actions. But the general tone of the article, the
general condemnation, is the very same used by the bourgeois press
which is supposedly being criticized in this article. Take for
example when the author writes that <i>“Black Bloc tactics are
solely for the fleeting entertainment of the people who take part in
them. They communicate nothing to the world at large. They lead
nowhere. They offer nothing to build on. Mainstream working people
aren't going to adopt Black Bloc tactics, or join the Black Bloc at
protest ghetto events.”</i> This is the same line of the bourgeois
press and is not accurate. It's hollow condemnation and, basically,
a counter-revolutionary opinion. The author does not
seem to understand the motivation of Black Bloc participants, the message
that Black Bloc tactics can convey, or who may eventually be moved by
such tactics and join in. In the closing paragraph of the article
the author writes about the <i>“lack of credibility,”</i> the
lack of <i>“commitment,”</i> and the <i>“failure of
imagination”</i> associated with the Mission District Black Bloc.
In psychological terms... I'd call that projection.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Other articles in issue #111 of
Slingshot were more or less interesting or insightful. It was
interesting to learn about a ballot initiative in Berkeley to
institute fines of $75 for sitting or lying on the sidewalk. An
assessment of the recent uprising against police brutality in Ahaheim
was interesting – <i>“What is striking is not necessarily the
police's preparedness for war, but rather their obvious neglect to
obscure their role as a counter-insurgency force. Thus, instead of
donning the traditional riot uniform and the baton, the police wear
military fatigues and are armed with rifles and less-than-lethal
weapons that closely resemble grenade launchers. The image conjured
is not South Central Los Angeles, 1992, but Afghanistan, 2012. Not
urban riot, but urban insurgency.”</i> Other articles were about a
People's Library which has been started in Oakland, a Food Not Bombs
chapter in Missouri, a “bike swarm” activist group in Portland
which meets up along the lines of a Critical Mass at locations <i>“where
social and political injustices can be found.”</i> Issue #111 also
included zine reviews and infoshop updates from around the world.
These were all well and good.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
One thing I noticed frequently
throughout issue #111 was quite a bit regarding essentialist identity
politics. At one level I think this could be a good thing. And I
think cultural sensitivity and respect for personal or societal
differences should generally be appreciated. However, in my recent
experiences with radical spaces, I've found that essentialist
identity politics are often used as a divisive distraction. For
example... if we are at a meeting about some corporation that is
dumping toxic waste upstream, I don't want the meeting to be derailed
in condemnation of someone who says, “That's really lame.” Then
when the person tries to apologize for their thoughtless words by saying, “Sorry,
dudes,” I don't want it all to start up again because one person
being addressed by such an apology will not tolerate being assigned a
gender like that. I'm not going to argue about the benign intentions
that either speaker may or may not have, but I feel that, sometimes,
essentialist identity politics are used in a domineering, disruptive,
and generally negative way. In a public forum people are not always
going to be up-to-speed on the most precise politically correct
speech. And those who aren't can sometimes still be otherwise valued
friends, comrades, and associates. So... during important
discussions when I see everything stop (and witch-hunts commence) at
the drop of an innocent word... I become leery about those who focus
heavily on essentialist identity politics.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As a general rule of thumb, I try to
avoid both those who take an extreme position in denying the historic
role of subjects like race or sexuality as well as those who try to
make such subjects the central core of everything that matters. This
isn't at all to say that racial slurs or overtly insensitive comments
should remain unaddressed, but sometimes a word like “dudes” is
gender neutral in the parlance of our day and, similarly, the word
“lame” sometimes doesn't have anything to do with people who
can't walk. Individuals, and the groups they are involved with, will
have to decide for themselves what kind of words they will tolerate – but the
strictest groups should remain somewhat private and public discussions
shouldn't be derailed by relatively harmless words or actions.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I honestly don't know the
first-hand particulars of the situation at the Long Haul. So... this
isn't to say that the problems associated with essentialist identity
politics are, with definitive certainty, harming the Long Haul
infoshop. But I did see some things in the Slingshot which suggested
they might be. Without going into specifics about how essentialist
identity politics can be problematic, I'll simply suggest that
members of the Long Haul community may want to check out Lawrence
Jarach's essay, <a href="http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lawrence-jarach-essentialism-and-the-problem-of-identity-politics" target="_blank">“Essentialism and the Problem of Identity Politics.”</a>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Anyway... that's my assessment of the
recent issue of Slingshot (#111) distributed by the Long Haul
infoshop. And my title of this review wasn't so much about
condemnation as much as it expressed sincere personal curiosity about
what's happening at the Long Haul these days. I'd genuinely like a
response from people currently involved in that community and maybe
they'll use this prompt to give their thoughts on the subject. I
hope I haven't overstepped my bounds and I do have the best wishes
for the infoshop. It would be nice if more infoshops were as active
as the Long Haul and it would be nice to see more radical newspapers
pop up. I'm sure I'll get my 2013 Slingshot organizer in the coming
weeks and hope to continue getting that annual publication for years
down the road.
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-21716844531257521262012-10-20T00:47:00.000-07:002012-10-20T00:47:59.171-07:00The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Disaster <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bcixn2KWIRs" width="425"></iframe>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BAzrWJXBIM0" width="425"></iframe><br />
<a name='more'></a>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UFoVUNApOg8" width="425"></iframe>
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EgxCnB5b1iQ" width="425"></iframe>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-37220715145204380762012-09-28T17:53:00.001-07:002012-09-28T18:06:37.921-07:00GLOBAL EDUCATION STRIKE Oct.18th & Nov.14-22nd, 2012<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pZU6tYJg9B8" width="425"></iframe>
More information about this can be found here: <a href="http://ism-global.net/">http://ism-global.net/</a><br />
<br />
Not sure what to make of all this, but it seems to be pretty cut and dry. It also seems to be void of the typical partisan politics associated with many protests. Also... this protest movement seems to have legs -- with many students around the world already actively organizing and protesting around these issues. I suspect that this may grow into a more comprehensive protest against the overall system and could likely lead to an international general strike.<br />
<br />
Also, if you are interested in the issues surrounding a growing international student movement, you may appreciate the following article which deals with many of the subjects at hand: <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/09/values-of-college-education.html" target="_blank">Values of a College Education</a>. Although it focuses particularly on the university system within the United States, those of you in other countries may find it relevant to your situation as well. N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-90837123623951439752012-09-25T07:51:00.001-07:002012-09-25T07:51:52.057-07:00Sexual Politics: Obfuscated and Dismissed (A Follow-Up)
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It turns out that <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-repressed-oppressive-sexuality-of.html">my
article about sexuality</a> was not well-received. To some extent
this was expected. And I knew it would be criticized by those on all
sides with a position about sexuality. I was hoping it would also
spur some constructive dialogue, but this wasn't really the case.
Instead, the article was criticized for reasons I wouldn't have
expected. Both the proponents of “men's rights,” and one
apparent feminist, offered criticism that really didn't address the
underlying points I was trying to make in the article.</div>
<a name='more'></a>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/104u4i/the_repressed_oppressive_sexuality_of_modern/">The
“men's rights” crowd</a> did not like my use of the word
patriarchy. Although I think it's pretty basic concept which doesn't
actually condemn men or manhood, one comment suggested that:
“Patriarchy is a dog-whistle term feminists have used since the
incarnation of the second wave and any mention of it immediately
biases me against the user.” To some extent that may also be true,
but to deny the existence of patriarchy is to deny things like the
basic and widespread Judea-Christian values which teach that the man
is the master of the household and that wives should be obedient to
their husbands. It also denies the long-standing trend of
patriarchal lineage in terms of historically passing along the family
name and the wealth associated with that name. Sons have
historically been favored in these ways and have usually been the
recipients of family wealth after the passing of the parents. Even
to the extent this has changed it's undoubtedly been the historic
cause of certain subtle values being instilled in our society. And
the broader point regarding patriarchy is that it has proven
detrimental to both men and women.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another issue with the “men's rights”
proponents had to do with my mention of the glass ceiling. Although
it was conflated with issues of race, I more often associate the
glass ceiling with gender – in terms of how much power women are
able to achieve in our society (most senators and Fortune 500 CEOs
are not women, for example) and also with limited earning potential
women have historically had in regard to getting paid less for doing
the same amount of work as their male counterparts. I believe this
is still largely the case, but even if it's changed, again... the
historical reality of this condition instills certain values in
society. If one must compare the issue to race, it's as if racism in
the United States disappeared after the end of slavery or as if the
election of Obama somehow proved America was a post-racial society.
But, obviously, that is not true. The long-standing historical
values and practices of a society still have an effect on the way
that society is composed even after some practices have changed on
the surface.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And then the article was also critiqued
for what I felt were very petty reasons. For example... someone took
issue with this line: “<em>While not exactly common... if a woman
'cheats' on her husband, then, all-too-frequently, that amounts to a
death sentence – just like in any backwards 3rd world
fundamentalist nation. Our society is violent enough that even men
often suffer physical harm if they stray.”</em> This was portrayed
as exaggerated fear-mongering and painting men out to be monsters.
But again, that was not my intention and I feel it was a leap to come
to that conclusion. To clarify... the point was that church and
state backed monogamous contracts between men and women lead to
violent overreactions when such contracts are broken. Again... this
creates a problem for both men and women.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Feminists didn't chime in much about
this article – although I did post it to a few overtly feminist
forums. One apparent feminist took issue on an anarchist forum about
my portrayal of Andrea Dworkin's feminism and then admitted to not
reading any further than that first paragraph because of my “men's
movement misogyny apologia.” I was also corrected because I
confused the name of Andrea Dworkin with another 3-syllable name that
starts with an “A” and ends with an “a”. That criticism was
more understandable and personally embarrassing – but I feel like
it was an easy mistake to make and didn't really effect the points I
was trying to make (especially since my point was that I'm not big on
Dworkin's particular school of feminist thought).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While a “men's rights” proponent
accused me of being a leftist (presumably from the position of a
right-winger), <a href="http://anarchistnews.org/content/repressed-oppressive-sexuality-modern-society">on
an anarchist forum I was essentially accused of the same thing</a> –
with the reason being in the latter case that my position wasn't
radical or revolutionary enough. Ironically, the article was largely
about undermining Western consumeristic capitalism and ushering in a
new society by means of throwing off repressed sexual tendencies.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another point of critique, from a more
personal source, was that mentioning these subjects, and the various
positions people have on them, only somehow reinforced their
existence and made them more accepted and entrenched in our society.
The argument was, as I understand it, that just mentioning these
things merely added to the spectacle and normalized their existence.
However, I don't feel that ignoring problems or social conditions
will help change them. And I believe that analysis of these issues
will help inform new cultural patterns and perhaps inspire a
methodology for opposing the typical old ways. Frankly, I thought
this argument smacked of anti-intellectualism.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As you can see... I took it from all
sides (no pun intended) in regard to this issue. But I must admit
that I was a little disappointed in the overall response and the lack
thereof. I felt the article was rather frank and that this isn't
something you often see from most people in regard to the very
sensitive subject of sexuality. The five pages I wrote on the
subject were some of the most tedious I've ever written. I tried to
be thorough, balanced, and honest about a very tricky subject –
which is almost taboo by it's very nature. If anyone agreed with the
position I put forward... they certainly weren't forthcoming with
statements of support. And, if I didn't know better, it almost seems
that those who might agree with me are actually somewhat repressed in
themselves. Or... maybe all the criticism leveled at me was
perfectly reasonable and justified?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I don't think my positions
expressed were actually very controversial. Maybe that's why I
didn't receive much positive feedback? Maybe my article was more
trite, hackneyed, and commonly accepted than I believe? That seems
unlikely to me from where I stand, but maybe everyone is already
undertaking the first steps of a sexual revolution which will
undermine the sexually repressive and oppressive nature of modern
society? One can only hope.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-29040632505517695692012-09-24T17:38:00.000-07:002012-09-24T17:39:12.635-07:00Iran & Occupy Wall Street<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The president of Iran, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-ahmadinejad-meet-occupy-wall-street_652994.html">according
to a recent report</a>, wants to meet with the proponents of <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet" target="_blank">Occupy Wall Street</a>. This meeting will occur as President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad goes on a media tour during his visit in New York for the
United Nations General Assembly.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In a sense this is an understandable
political move because such a meeting with American activists will
give him an opportunity to highlight discontent within the United
States. On the other hand... it seems as if Ahmadinejad may not
understand the Occupy movement any better than American politicians.
Who exactly would he plan on meeting with? Occupy Wall Street has
never had any centralized leadership and having a hundred members of
that movement asking him questions or having a dialogue with him
would really not be representative of that movement as a whole. This
is even assuming the particular occupiers he meets with are not
somehow screened in advance for the purpose of political theater.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Occupy Wall Street was largely
initiated by anarchists and with anarchistic principles. To a large
extent the movement remains anarchistic despite being watered down
with milquetoast liberals and Ron Paul fanboys. So what in the world
could the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran expect to find in
common with such a movement? The corruption of Wall Street and the
U.S. government does not at all suggest that the movement is on the
same side as, or in favor of, a repressive theocratic government.
And let's face reality... if this sort of movement had manifested in
Iran <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/828696.stm">it
would have been attacked by the government of that land</a>, and it's
media, just as the movement was attacked by the U.S. government and
it's media. Quite arguably the attacks on such a movement would have
been worse in Iran. Also, certainly, <a href="http://rt.com/news/iran-women-university-ban-171/">the
participation of women</a> would have served as extra motivation to
crack down on this movement if it had manifested in Iran.
</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Don't get me wrong... I'm sure there
are plenty of freedom-loving people in Iran. I suspect that many
Iranians haven't even had their ethics or morality corrupted by
theocratic interpretations of religion. Iranians deserve peace and
prosperity just like all other populations. But the national
leadership of Iran, the theocratic rule of the so-called “Leader of
the Revolution,” is undoubtedly just as corrupt as the leadership
offered by the politicians in the United States. Overt criticism of
Ali Khamenei, within the borders of Iran, is likely to be even more
risky than overt criticism of politicians within America. Insomuch
as the Iranian government works to stay in power by keeping the
Iranian population repressed... the Iranians have much in common with
those living within the borders of the United States – who are also
repressed by politicians doing whatever they can to stay in power.
So while I find the government of Iran to be corrupt and abusive of
Iranians, I am in solidarity with the common population of Iran in
the same way that I am in solidarity with the common populations of
all lands.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The issue at hand isn't whether or not
I believe that <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=883">Iran
is threatened by the military forces of the West</a>, it is. And the
issue isn't whether or not Iranians should have self-determination in
the lands where they dwell. My point of contention is with the
Iranian government – the destructive projects it undertakes and the
oppressive tactics it uses to suppress the Iranian people. This is,
as an anarchist, the same issue I have with the U.S. government. And
so, when the President of Iran wants to meet with a group of
representatives from a movement that I've generally supported... I
am very skeptical of the motivations for any such meeting.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It seems to me that such a meeting is
not at all intended to really help either the people of Iran or the
people within the borders of the United States. On the contrary, I
see such a meeting as detrimental to both populations. As I
mentioned in the opening paragraph, this meeting will give the
opportunity to present the United States as a corrupt entity to the
people back in Iran. The state media in Iran can point out all the
corruption that people in the United States must deal with and the
generally flawed system under which they live. No mention of the
similar corruption in Iran will be mentioned in such a propaganda
piece and, therefore, the United States will be presented as a lesser
nation than Iran. The idea will be that “things are rough all over
and even if you are a bit discontent with this government... the
government elsewhere is just as bad or worse.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the United States... the Occupy
movement, just because a few supposed representatives of that group
intend to meet with the representative of such a corrupt and abusive
Iranian system, will be painted as naïve (and possibly as being
proponents of such a system themselves). And, truth be told, it
probably is pretty naïve for members of a liberation movement to
meet with a corrupt leader of a foreign government. Sure, he'll
agree with them about every criticism of the United States that is
put forward, and yes, the United States often takes an unnecessarily
hostile position towards Iran, but the President of Iran is not an
ally of humanity. It's as simple as that. The enemy of your enemy
is often not your ally.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In fact, the government of the United
States and the Iranian government have much more in common with each
other, and work much more closely together, than is often considered.
Even the incessant sabre-rattling and talk of war between these two
nations may be little more than a tool used to control the
populations in these countries. Such posturing would certainly serve
to pump up arms sales. And the relationship between the governments
of Iran and the United States, as hostile as it may often seem,
actually serve to stabilize and control the price of oil. The fact
of the matter is that the governments within both nations actually
profit (both politically and financially) because of the positions
they maintain relative to each other. They shine a bad light on each
other to make themselves look more moderate by comparison and, in so
doing, they reinforce their own power and control.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If I didn't know better... it might
even be possible to suspect that the American banking industry was
financing Ahmadinejad's meeting with the Occupy Wall Street
protesters. Hell, they could even hire their own stand-ins for the
movement to ask all the same old questions and present all the same
old legitimate critiques. And, again as stated above, this would
play out on Iranian television to serve the Supreme Leader's
propaganda interests and in the United States it would be presented
as the Occupy movement cozying up with the authoritarian leadership
of oppressive governments. However... this meeting does offer some
better possibilities.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A real line of questioning from the
Occupy movement in the U.S. would go something like this... “How
has the Occupy movement manifested itself in Iran and how has the
Iranian government dealt with it?” If Ahmadinejad denied it's
existence there, a follow up could be about more general protests
there and how the Iranian Assembly of Experts deals with such
protests. And, at this point, any proponents of the Occupy Wall
Street movement should repeatedly ask about things like <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/01/the-chain-murders-killing-dissidents-and-intellectuals-1988-1998.html">“The
Chain Murders”</a> and <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/021/1990/en/5c32759d-ee5e-11dd-9381-bdd29f83d3a8/mde130211990en.html">the
execution of political prisoners in 1988</a>.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The effect of such a line of
questioning, while perhaps seen as impolitic by some, would be to
actually show solidarity with the people of Iran. We could show that
we know about their struggles and in many ways, they are the same as
our struggles. This would solidify the Occupy Wall Street movement
as an international movement and not something merely looking for a
few reforms in the United States. We can show that we recognize the
harm that Wall Street is doing around the world and how it acts in
coordination with oppressive governments around the world.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Because of modern social media
technologies, it's likely that these questions and this information
would still reach the general population of Iran. Such a line of
questioning would serve to undermine the propaganda model that is
currently in place which works to keep people under all governments
ignorant about ideas of freedom, peace, and revolution. This is a
general project which needs to be undertaken while the opportunity is
at hand – because we don't know when new forms of media will come
under tighter control by the controlling powers.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, finally, I should point out that
this proposed meeting between Ahmadinejad and the proponents of
Occupy Wall Street first came to my attention on the <a href="http://drudgereport.com/">Drudge
Report</a> – which continues to be a very popular source of news
and which is generally considered to be right wing website. So the
negative association between the Occupy movement and the Iranian
government is undoubtedly already being put forward.
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-14909580242518411202012-09-19T04:58:00.000-07:002012-09-22T15:57:52.008-07:00The Repressed & Oppressive Sexuality of Modern Society <div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I try to stay informed about modern
feminist theory. And I do actually consider myself a feminist –
much to the chagrin of some online acquaintances who consider
themselves part of the “<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights">men's
rights</a>” movement. But I'm not big on the Andrea Dworkin school
of thought and I'm quite sure that most <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/">feminists</a>
don't actually believe that all men are latent rapists who should be
castrated at birth. Nor do I believe that everyone in the growing
“men's rights” movement is a hate-filled misogynist. Still, it
is fairly clear that there are a lot of hateful people who
unfortunately identify with both movements.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
My goal in writing this isn't
optimistic enough to believe that we can somehow repair all of the
damaged people who have redirected their pain into the avenues of
sexist hate and oppressive practices, but I think this is a subject
worthy of attention. And, while I'll try now to offer some frank
comments on a complex and difficult subject, I realize that I live in
a repressed culture and probably will have some points of contention
with other good-willed people who also grew up in a repressed
culture. Nevertheless... I do hope that I can offer up some subtle
and pertinent points which may often be overlooked in typical
discussions about sexuality.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The following critique largely will
center around monogamous hetero-normative relationships as they are
traditionally perceived. This is not intended to deny or dismiss the
existence of other types of relationships, sexual or otherwise, but
is rather intended to demonstrate what is commonly presented as
“normal” in modern society and how that standardized normality
undermines modern society.
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The <a href="http://grooveshark.com/s/Berketex+Bribe/2CmDul?src=5">Berketex
Bride</a></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Let's consider a typical marriage in
the United States. It starts when the wife typically takes her
husbands last name. Maybe there is a prenuptial agreement before
that (if they are wealthy). The newlyweds basically swear an oath
that, for the rest of their lives, they will never have sex with
other people. On a related note, children are often expected (if not
demanded). Children may or may not enter the picture. If they do
enter... typical Judea-Christian values are likely to be instilled
within them. Even those couples who don't go to church probably buy
too much into the idea that “the man of the house” should wear
the proverbial pants and make the important family decisions. It's
typical standard practice, generally speaking with definite
exceptions, for the woman in the marriage to take care of the
children, make the meals, and clean the house. This is regardless of
whether or not they both have jobs where they are working 40+ hours a
week. Even if they do both have jobs, the woman will often hit the
glass ceiling and make less money – which often puts her in a
position where she won't be able to contribute as much to the
economic situation of the marriage contract. Things often become
stressed for many of the above reasons. And woe if either of them
should ever want someone else in their life. While not exactly
common... if a woman “cheats” on her husband, then,
all-too-frequently, that amounts to a death sentence – just like in
any backwards 3rd world fundamentalist nation. Our society is
violent enough that even men often suffer physical harm if they
stray. And even if a marriage doesn't end in violence... it often
ends in anger – with the children learning all to much about that
subject.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What I was trying to get at here are
the politics typically engaged in by a typical American couple. And
this will, undoubtedly, be where I lose some people. Most couples
probably aren't talking about <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2009/10/revolution-is-not-just-word-but-why.html" target="_blank">revolution</a>. They're talking about
maintaining the status quo or making mild reforms to the system which
is <a href="http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html">destroying
every living thing in its path</a>. At best... a typical couple
might consider voting for the less warmongering candidate – but
there are plenty who will vote for the most. They might vote for the
pro-choice candidate (because he's thereby deemed a feminist), but
they don't consider <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/05-3">the
drone </a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/05-3">bombings
which </a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/05-3">that
candidate has previously ordered and which have subsequently killed
innocent women and little girls at wedding parties and funerals</a> –
some feminist indeed. On the other hand... the typical couple is
almost as likely to vote for the candidate who <i>overtly</i> wants
women oppressed and who doesn't want equal pay or adequate healthcare
to be provided to women. Even if they don't vote or discuss
politics, per se, almost all of the pair's actions are still actually
political – from driving the kids to soccer practice in the SUV, to
working in the accounting department of some bank, to going through
the drive-thru at at some fast food joint.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Branches and Roots of Repression
and Oppression</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At this point I hope I've started to
show (or at least hinted at) how the typical sexual relationships in
this society have broader implications. With the common patriarchal
lineage and enforced monogamous contracts between men and women often
being a part of our most intimate personal relationships... is it any
wonder at all that other forms of stifling and oppressive social
conditions coexist alongside this paradigm? It may or may not be a
leap of causation, and common patriarchal oppression may or may not
be the direct effect (or cause) of other forms of oppression – but
it all clearly fits together incredibly well.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The tolerance of typical oppression,
which is found in so many of our intimate relationships, breeds a
tolerance for other forms of oppression. For example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism">eco-feminism</a>,
as the name implies, studies the link between traditionally conceived
patriarchal abuses and the destruction of the environmental factors
that we all require to live. Destruction of mother Earth may be the
most extreme form of oppression there is.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But it doesn't stop there (or at least
it doesn't start there). If someone beats the woman they share their
bed with, for example, and if they beat their children born of that
woman, or even if they just silently claim (and wield) some sort of
authority over their family's freedom... then why would you generally
expect such a person engaged in this sort of activity to be a
humanitarian in other aspects of society? What, by extension, can
you expect of their formal politics? War itself can be connected
with this system of common oppression which is present in so many
lives.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, in the final analysis, the “men's
rights” crowd should recognize that even the raping of men <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/">(at
historically unprecedented levels within the United States of America
[because of the incredible number of tortured prisoners])</a> is,
actually, the result of an oppressive patriarchal system. This is
undoubtedly a feminist issue. Feminists don't want their husbands,
fathers or sons raped any more than they want their sisters,
daughters or mothers raped. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Most Obvious and Direct Sexual
Oppression</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well... it would be difficult to have a
comprehensive and meaningful article about sexual oppression without
stopping to take a look at this subject. As I pointed out in the
last paragraph... this is not just violence directed towards women.
Historically, it's fair to say that more women have been raped than
men. And an argument can be made that individual women often suffer
the effects of a rape more than individual men (if only in terms of
possibly of getting pregnant). But just ask the Catholic church if
men and boys are ever raped. Do you think it effects men and boys
minimally when they are raped?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rape is such a huge subject, and such a
terrible act, that I can hardly believe that anyone ever really tries
to tackle the topic. The word itself, undoubtedly, brings a flood of
negative emotions to many people. And the psychological and
emotional scars associated with rape may be worse than the physical
scars. Rape victims will often suffer PTSD. For both men and women
there is an incredibly unfortunate stigma which goes along with being
raped and many people never discuss the fact if they been victimized
by such an attack.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On the other hand, because of those
aforementioned facts, rapists also carry a huge stigma with
themselves if their action is discovered – and quite justifiably
so. I feel that when a person is proven to be a rapist then the
victim and their immediate communities should have some sort of
meaningful input about how the rapist is to be punished. I really
don't trust the criminal justice system to bring closure for anyone
in relation to this issue. I don't know if I could be any more
extreme or level-headed in my aforementioned recommendation for
justice. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However, along similar lines... I feel
that rape accusations ought to be carefully contemplated. I've heard
many accounts from many people about spurious rape accusations and I
think that adds in yet another horrible aspect to whole subject.
It's so emotionally charged that even the weakest of accusations can
have friends and family members immediately flying off the handle in
retaliation. This is a subject which I think many people would like
some prominent feminists to address more thoroughly.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It doesn't help that the definition of
rape seems to be so frequently twisted. For example... begging for
sex seems nearly equivalent to rape itself in some circles. If a
couple wakes up in the morning and the woman asks, “Hey, wanna have
a quickie before work?” and her male lover then replies, “Not
today,” well, then, it is tantamount to the highest level of
villainy if she coaxingly says... “Pretty please, with sugar on
top?” Don't get me wrong... begging for sex even a little bit is
certainly very unbecoming, and it's something which should be
considered in terms of whether or not someone might want to continue
a particular relationship. But even ten minutes of someone begging
on their hands and knees is not the same as physically assaulting
someone in a sexual manner. It's really not the same thing. Even if
one were to acquiesce to such begging, it's not exactly the same
thing. I'm not trying to be an apologist for that activity, but I
think a clear delineation needs to be made because loose definitions
of rape don't really help those who are sexually assaulted.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As one last example... if two people
get very drunk, and both engage in sex acts, without forcing the
other at all, I don't necessarily think that the first person to
claim rape after such an instance should be allowed to essentially
ruin a life with such accusations. And there can be obvious
incentive for such accusations. For example, imagine two flirtatious
co-workers losing their inhibitions at an office party and sneaking
off to have sex. If the women got pregnant, and/or if their spouses
found out, well... some people will simply throw their indiscreet
co-worker under the proverbial bus. I think it sucks that either of
those people would have the burden of being called a rapist placed
upon them. And how much worse is it if there are charges or violence
subsequently brought upon that person? Of course, there may also
even be <a href="http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml">political
motivations or motivations of revenge and jealousy</a> associated
with unfounded rape accusations.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Moving on from a difficult subject,
I'll just say that both rape and the practice of making false rape
allegations are both pretty heinous offenses in their own ways. One
of the ways that both of these actions affect society is by making
people more repressed and more afraid to intimately connect with
others by means of sex (which is a pretty basic, wonderful, and
natural thing). An argument could be made that this subsequent
sexual repression (in psychological terms), and the subsequent fear
of even consensual sex, could actually lead to more rapes taking
place – insomuch as a society with more repressed people is likely
to have more oppressive sexual values which will then lead to more
rapes occurring. This could be one of the worst feedback loops ever.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Is there a better way?
</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rather than being afraid of sex or a
healthy sexuality... how much better would it be if, instead of
vigilantly upholding monogamous Judea-Christian values, we were
readily able to have consensual sex with any number of partners over
any course of time we saw fit? Would that really be so awful? What
if those who couldn't find consensual partners (or didn't want to
have sex [or children]) weren't derided because of that fact? What
if the church and state didn't impose unnecessary external conditions
on who we could love or how relationships with them must be
structured? If two (or more) responsible adults want to have sex
together, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
More to the point... rather than
struggling to make ends meet in the modern rat race, what if people
spent much more time having sex? I don't mean sex for the purposes
of continuing the family name or passing on property – I'm talking
about sex for mutual pleasure (and maybe physical fitness). What if,
rather than spending so much time accumulating material goods, we
instead spent more time cultivating passionate sexual relationships
with the same enthusiasm? That, arguably, could undermine the
entirety of Western civilization.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Modern homo sapiens are the most
domesticated animal on Earth. We behave in ways of life that are not
efficient and not in our individual or collective best interests.
Many (if not most) work at jobs they dislike to maintain a lifestyle
they don't really want. As the saying goes... “We work to drive to
work to drive to work.” And how much worse would it be if you were
working on the assembly line at a sweatshop or dropping deep into a
mine each day?
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But it hasn't been like this in all
societies throughout history. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada#Culture">First
Nations</a> didn't have 9-5 jobs with an hour long commute both ways.
And, contrary to outdated revisionist history, they did not suffer
incessant hardships at all like the hardships that the westerners
brought with them when they invaded. The people of the First Nations
had knowledge of herbal medicines (including birth control) and they
had food, family, shelter and all they needed. What they didn't
have, again contrary to revisionist history, was an underlying
patriarchal system of control. In fact, the women of First Nation
<a href="http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/iroquoisinfluence.html">tribes
traditionally played important roles in decisions made by tribal
councils</a>. This can be seen in many tribal societies that had
limited contact with Western civilization. Of course those societies
changed somewhat after encountering Western civilization (especially
when invaded and given smallpox), and old ways have undoubtedly been
lost in many areas, but a balanced look at the anthropological
evidence (which doesn't present tribal people as miserable unholy
savages who needed civilization to save them from themselves) will
show that they were living happy sustainable lives in relative peace.
This, to me, suggests the likelihood of healthy sexuality. It is
known that <a href="http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=246">homosexuality
was previously not a cardinal sin in many tribal societies</a>. With
means of birth control, and knowledge of their reproductive cycles,
the women and men of the First Nations were free to choose their
lovers without the notion of harsh consequences. This, I believe, is
a definite hallmark of an ideal society – and it runs counter to
almost every aspect of our modern techno-industrial society and what
it produces.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now, arguably, modern women in the West
do have a great deal of sexual freedom (even if it's regularly under
attack and even if they are sexualized at inappropriate times). But
there are important aspects which I feel feminists need to consider
in this regard. The consequences of Western consumer society reach
far beyond the wealthy first world nations. If a woman in Paris or
Berlin is able to freely wear stylish and provocative clothing, and
if she is freely allowed to engage in any sort of sexual practices...
to the extent that she supports her nation's economic system (and the
luxuries she sees associated with it) she is also part of the
exported exploitation of women in poor third world nations around the
world.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Have no doubt that economic oppression
is related to sexual oppression. Similarly, environmental
degradation amounts to sexual degradation. It's safe to say that
toxic waste dumps and polluted waterways are not usually
aphrodisiacs. So... the relatively “free” Western woman is
largely free because the nation in which she lives effectively
exports the oppression for all practical purposes – via sweatshop
labor, war for oil, a Western diet, et cetera. And, frankly, I don't
think it's good feminist practice to support such a system.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>The Big Finish</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The intention of this article has not
been to address each and every nuance of modern and historical
sexuality. And, with the author being as repressed as he undoubtedly
is (much unlike my dear readers, I'm sure), it's difficult to tackle
(from a personal socio-political perspective) every subject. I tend
to think that erotica and sex workers are not the bane of modern
society, for example. (This isn't at all to suggest that I've
appeared in many erotic films or that I've ever paid for sex.) But
the larger subject at hand, the implications of the typical sexuality
which underlies much of the rest of what we do in modern society, is
largely taboo. We can discuss issues we see raised in <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14722831">Dan
Savage's column</a>, and we can even have the most uninhibited sex
imaginable, but there are still underlying factors which are taboo to
discuss and which are potentially stigmatizing even to mention.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Underneath it all, I feel that we need
to look more closely at the root causes and consequences of sexual
repression and oppression. These twin factors run rampant through
the most fundamental aspects of modern society. If you want to put a
stop to sexual oppression, then you must also work to end every other
form of oppression – because these things work in turn to create
both sexual repression and sexual oppression. Sexual liberation
cannot occur on a broad scale while wars rage, while nuclear waste
accumulates, and while forests are clear-cut. Sexual liberation can
not occur while people are oppressed for the color of their skin or
the cheap labor they can provide. Sexual liberation requires total
liberation and the broader population is only sexually liberated to
the extent which they are liberated in every other metric of freedom.
“There can be no liberation without sexual liberation.”
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-23959672850725340602012-08-29T03:23:00.000-07:002012-08-29T03:23:51.410-07:00The Media's Spin On Anarchists<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There has recently been a growing and
disturbing trend whereby right-wing idealogues, organizations, and
terrorists have been presented in the media as being
“anti-government” or even anarchists. This effectively serves to confuse the public about the philosophy of
anarchism and what anarchists actually stand for. And this practice
will, undoubtedly, have negative consequences for actual anarchist
communities.
</div>
<br />
This inaccurate media portrayal of right wing extremists really caught my attention after
the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin – when Amy Goodman subsequently interviewed a
former DHS analyst on the subject of “right-wing extremists.” In
that interview her guest dismissed the idea that Timothy McVeigh was a racist and no mention of his Christian fundamentalism was put
forward. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmAP684NLzw&t=6m58s" target="_blank">He was described primarily as being involved with “anti-government” militias</a>. This despite the fact that McVeigh
constantly praised the Turner Diaries (a novel that romanticizes a
race war), which he sold below cost at gun shows, and despite the
fact that he was associated with the fundamentalist Christian Identity movement.
And, actually, McVeigh was not really anti-government. Rather, <i>he was
merely opposed to certain aspects of the government currently in
charge</i>. So, while I am a frequent member of DemocracyNow's audience,
I think Ms.Goodman dropped the ball in this particular interview and
should have been a little more challenging with her questions.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
More to the point along these lines... <a href="http://www.wapt.com/news/national/Soldier-says-he-was-part-of-revolution-plot/-/9157010/16291308/-/3gio6w/-/index.html" target="_blank">a prominent headline in the news recently</a> has been about a supposed “anarchist”
cell within the U.S. military which was allegedly planning to carry
out political assassinations, blow up dams, and poison Washington
state's apple orchards. However, despite numerous headline's
referring to them as “anarchists,” when one looked a little
deeper it was discovered that these "anarchists" were actually just “true
patriots” who were essentially looking to take the country
back. Later it was revealed that <a href="http://gawker.com/5938288/leader-of-army-plot-to-assassinate-obama-apparently-attended-the-2008-republican-convention-as-a-page" target="_blank">the alleged ringleader of the group was an usher at the RNC in 2008</a>. Like McVeigh, this group seems to be comprised of fairly
typical right-wing militants – who are not really "anti-government" and
certainly not anarchists.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The problem is that much of the general
public doesn't really know much about anarchism or anarchist history
and, so, they are likely to believe that the
aforementioned people are actually anti-government anarchists. However, as
an anarchist, I can tell you that I find this to be seriously
troubling and inaccurate.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And the effect of this mislabeling and
the demonization of anarchists will not stop the right-wing hate groups
from continuing to perpetrate massacres like those in Oklahoma City
or at the Sikh temple. Nor will it work to stop the murder of
doctors who perform abortions. Nor does it work against anti-gay or
racially motivated hate crimes.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This mislabeling and
demonization will work against actual anarchists who often directly
oppose the perpetrators of such attacks. The anti-fascist movement
around the world, <a href="http://greycoast.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/portland-day-of-antifasist-and-antiracist-action-july-31/" target="_blank">groups who physically confront Nazis and other fascists when they march</a>, are predominately made up of anti-racist
anarchists. You can find countless articles and videos about
anarchists actively resisting fascistic racists. However, according
to popular media portrayals, anarchists and fascistic right-wing
racists are one and the same.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So... what is the real reason for this
mislabeling and demonization of anarchists? It's actually pretty
simple. Not only do anarchists actively oppose neo-Nazis and Klansmen, they also oppose the official racist and fascistic policies
of the U.S. government. They oppose the racist police state of the
United States which imprisons more people (per-capita AND in total
numbers) than any other nation on Earth. Anarchists oppose the
corporate fascism which concentrates power into the hands of a few
while it abuses and enslaves people around the world. Anarchists
oppose the racist militarism which kills innocent civilians around
the world. Anarchists oppose the system of domination which leads to
a billion people going hungry each year and which also destroys the
environmental foundation required for human life on this planet. And they're not looking to
replace one corrupt government with a less evil version, they're looking to create a
completely non-hierarchical system wherein all people are free and
have their needs are met.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Nevertheless, when right-wing racist
extremists are mislabeled as anti-government anarchists... the effect
is to crush actual anarchist communities and movements. For example,
at the recent RNC protest in Tampa, a spectre was raised about the
diabolical anarchists who were planning all sorts of dastardly crimes
during the convention. However, as the protest began, the riot
police on the ground (not including other agencies involved with
“Homeland Security” who were present) outnumbered the protesters
4 to 1. No great atrocity occurred but the local police got an
infusion of high-tech weaponry (which they will conveniently retain after the
convention and protest is long over). Surveillance and infiltration
of anarchist groups was undoubtedly escalated and the effects of such
will undoubtedly linger.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The real anti-government and
anti-corporate groups are suppressed, thanks in part to the mislabeling and
demonization by the media, while the right wing hate groups keep doing
the awful things they always do. And the general public suffers as a result
of this because the general public is probably more inclined to be
anti-fascist, anti-corporate, anti-racist, and anti-government as
well – if only the real and legitimate arguments for anarchism
were presented honestly in the mainstream media. But, as it is, general repression and
surveillance of the broader population is continuously increased under the
auspices of protecting society from the anti-government “anarchist”
bogeyman.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Don't misunderstand, anarchists are not
all peacenik pacifists looking to sing Kumbaya while a phalanx of
armed riot police charge at them. Ideologically, many anarchists are
at least willing to defend themselves – if not actually inclined to
go on the offensive. But the pertinent issue at hand is the scale of the threat
presented by anarchists in the United States and who (or what) is
actually being threatened by them. Beyond the false media portrayals
of right-wing patriots as anarchists... it's hard to recall any
massacres perpetrated by anarchists in the United States. And any
violence they do occasionally engage in is certainly not for the
purposes of maintaining or establishing a more racist or oppressive
government. Some anarchists are inclined to scrap a little bit with
the police at protests (a highly punishable offense regardless of
harm done), but the biggest threat most anarchists present in this
country is, primarily, toward the property of destructive corporations.
And this is largely why they are so demonized by the government and
the mainstream corporate media.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A random ATM (belonging to some bank
that stole a billion dollars) gets jammed full of honey or superglue, a sweatshop
storefront gets it window smashed at some infrequent protest, or
maybe once in a blue moon the elusive ELF strikes with no casualties.
Then... the state and the media calls for the complete crackdown on
all the unruly and dangerous anarchists. The anarchists who were NOT responsible
for the Oklahoma city bombing, who were not responsible for D.C. sniper spree,
and who were not responsible for the Sikh Temple massacre – these
were all actions undertaken by former members of the U.S. military.
The anarchists aren't religious fundamentalists involved with the 9/11 attacks or
the murder of abortion providers. The anarchists are not gunning down poor
people each day in the official line of duty. And yet, it is
the anarchists who are often presented as public enemy number one.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Obviously, it is their underlying
ideology and their latent populist appeal which is feared by the
state and its media. And, maybe, someday, anarchists will actually
pose a serious threat to the oppressive authoritarian systems in place.
But, until then, especially for the moment, lets at least be honest
about who anarchists really are and what threats they actually
present. Most anarchists in the U.S., for better or worse, are
primarily concerned with starting sustainable farms, feeding the hungry, and speaking out against war. They are interested in going to
book fairs, protecting the environment, and working on their blogs. And these are the same anarchists who will probably be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Germany#Erich_M.C3.BChsam">the
first to go when the purges start</a>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-43115138580212859302012-08-22T15:11:00.002-07:002013-04-24T11:54:38.699-07:00The System Currently In Place<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The CEO of a prominent group promoting
the manifestation of a technological singularity, Luke Muehlhauser
from the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, recently
came out with <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y9lm0/i_am_luke_muehlhauser_ceo_of_the_singularity/c5tm6fu">a
very surprising statement regarding the dangers which would accompany
the creation of artificial super-intelligence</a>:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“Unfortunately, the singularity may not be what you're hoping
for. By default the singularity (intelligence explosion) will go very
badly for humans, because what humans want is a very, very specific
set of things in the vast space of possible motivations, and it's
very hard to translate what we want into sufficiently precise math,
so by default superhuman AIs will end up optimizing the world around
us for something </i><i>other than what we want, and using up all
our resources to do so.”</i></blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For those of you unfamiliar with the
concept of the technological singularity... it has to do (generally
speaking) with programming a thinking computer that initially has the
same cognitive abilities as a human being. Due to computers
regularly becoming able to process evermore information faster, in a
very short time, after a computer achieved a human level of
intellect, it would, conceivably, surpass that level – arguably in
the next moment and almost certainly within the next few years. What
would start with a computer being able to pass a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test" target="_blank">Turing test</a>
(basically being able to fool human observers as to whether or not
they were having a dialogue with a human or a computer) would then
shortly be followed by a type of self-consciousness machine that
would intellectually be capable of manipulating humans and taking
human rationality to its furthest degree.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As indicated by Muehlhauser's
statement, this could all lead to disastrous results for humanity.
And, while I can't help but thinking this was some sort of an
subconscious confession from him, his expressed concern is reflected
by statements from other prominent individuals who work in fields
related to a technological singularity. For example, Bill Joy, the
co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has written about “<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html">Why
the future doesn't need us</a>,” explaining some of the dangers
posed by a potential technological singularity. Even more optimistic
figures in the related fields, like Ray Kurzweil, have been quoted as
saying, “<i>I’m not oblivious to the dangers, but I’m optimistic
that we’ll make it through without destroying civilization.</i>”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Personally, I'm not convinced that a
singularity of the sort envisioned by the aforementioned
technologists is possible or likely. It may actually be possible but
I'm still wondering why we aren't already driving flying cars and
living in the techno-utopia promised by similar technologists from
the past. And, when I consider the hypothetical dangers posed by the
proposed technological singularity, I tend to think that the
existential risk to humankind outweighs the possible benefits.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
More to the point, I feel that the
overall technological system in place, techno-industrial society as
it currently exists, is already “optimizing the world around us for
something <i>other</i> than what we want, and using up all our
resources to do so.” Muehlhauser's fear is already the reality as
far as I can tell.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Even widespread implementation of early
technological systems, like widespread agriculture, has caused places
like the fertile crescent to become deserts. The technological
advancement of that practice has since led to more widespread
disasters – rainforests are being destroyed for cropland, the crops
grown are increasingly being used for bio-fuels (presenting their own
problems), and roughly a billion people go hungry or starve each year
on this planet despite the widespread implementation of agricultural
technologies. The Bhopal disaster, one of the single most
devastating industrial catastrophes to date, was related to the
production of agricultural pesticides. And yet, despite this, we are
generally led to believe that agriculture has been a boon for
humanity and is a project which should unquestionably continue.
This, to me, is an example of a technological system advancing for
its own sake rather than for the benefit of humanity. It is as
Muehlhauser puts it... “optimizing the world around us for
something <i>other</i> than what we want, and using up all our
resources to do so.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Other techno-industrial projects also
proceed despite the harm they cause to humanity and despite the fact
that they are using up resources in an entirely unsustainable way.
Take, for example, the computer which I, as a critic, am using to
write this article. We are told that computers make our lives better
and lead to more progress, but their manufacturing process leads to
toxic waste and their usage tends to promote a sedentary
consumeristic lifestyle (presenting destructive problems in itself).
But who can effectively argue that computer usage should be stymied
or that broadening the world wide web of computer networks is a
negative thing? To use these tools is certainly to be somewhat
complicit in the problems they present, but to argue against them
without employing their use seems quite futile. The system sucks us
all in whether we'd like it to or not and it would be nigh impossible
to escape the effects of the techno-industrial society which we have
been born into. (I'd argue that certain destructive technologies can
be used against themselves, but that's another subject altogether.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The way our modern system is set up,
with an exponentially growing human population, it serves more the
interests of technological advancement and scientific discovery for
its own sake rather than for serving the broader interests of
humanity at large. A large human population, despite the problems
that accompany it, simply allows for more people working for further
technological advancements. And even those working in seemingly
benign jobs within this modern system actually facilitate the work
done in more destructive sectors of techno-industrial society. The
toilet scrubbers and the bakers doing their jobs makes it so that
rocket scientists, nuclear physicists, chemists, and genetic
engineers, can focus more completely on their work – which has
proven time and again to be highly destructive. And those latter
individuals, the scientists, are largely revered by our society and
held up for emulation despite the destructive powers they have
repeatedly unleashed.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When any destructive aspect of our
techno-industrial system must be acknowledged, like a nuclear
meltdown or the occurrence of some other large toxic spill, it's
presented as a necessary evil. But what is the good that comes with
these disasters? Is it because, in the case of nuclear power plant
melting down, more energy was previously created to be used for the
broader consumption of other resources (also known as the natural
world)? Or, maybe, a medical advancement is touted for saving lives
despite the harm involved with the creation and implementation of
that advancement? At the very best... technological advancement
seems to be a double-edged sword.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But incredible dangers presented by our
techno-industrial civilization persist. The negative feedback loops
associated with global warming, for instance, will continue beyond
most of the dates ever discussed – the Earth's atmospheric
temperature will continue to steadily rise even after the end of this
century. Toxic waste created over the last century will persist for
hundreds of thousands of years. And the weaponization of many
seemingly benign technologies threatens human existence on Earth.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And why? Why does humanity proceed
down this techno-industrial path? Is it supposed to be for the
creation of a computerized artificial super-intelligence (which even
the proponents fear)? Why would we seek to become gods just to
create the gods who will subsequently destroy us? I'm not really a
Freudian, but this is the thanatos urge personified in our society –
and it permeates most of us in this society. We largely serve,
promote, and defend a system which is, in one way or another, leading
to our collective destruction.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
How long can this continue before some
large portion of humanity attempts to go down a different and more
sustainable path? In the past couple years we have experienced the
worst ever nuclear meltdown as it occurred just outside the largest
urban population center on the planet – and which subsequently
inundated the largest ocean with high levels of radiation. We have
experienced an oil spill which essentially turned the Gulf of Mexico
into a toxic pit. And we have seen unprecedented heatwaves, forest
fires, and droughts around the world which have occurred as a direct
result of global warming which is brought about by our
techno-industrial civilization. Our collective response to these
events has been little better than that of cattle being led into the
slaughterhouse. We are already going along with a system that is
“optimizing the world around us for something <i>other</i> than
what we want, and using up all our resources to do so.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But I suspect humankind's broader
mindset, and our way of relating to this crisis, might change. The
disasters of techno-industrial mass society are becoming more
frequent and more apparent. At some point... some significant
portion of the global population may begin to effectively fight back
as the things which we collectively value, and our relationship with
the current system, suddenly and dramatically changes. This may or
may not occur in time to prevent the anthropocene mass extinction
event from finally catching up with its cause but, at the very least,
humanity at large might find some dignity in our resistance to the
system currently in place.</div>
</div>
N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-13507183113637669242012-07-31T23:08:00.000-07:002012-08-22T15:39:40.910-07:00Forsaken By Adbusters (My response to that magazine's recent call for submissions.)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gdpTNkqp4D0/UBjEczFK9II/AAAAAAAAANg/B8JD6yrE4ks/s1600/adbusters_blog_postcool-creatives_s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gdpTNkqp4D0/UBjEczFK9II/AAAAAAAAANg/B8JD6yrE4ks/s400/adbusters_blog_postcool-creatives_s.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I have a long-standing love-hate relationship with Adbusters. Of course, while I've generally been a promoter and defender of that publication... the editorial staff has only deemed one simple letter worthy of publication out of of the many things I've submitted over the years. Now, I realize that my various submissions may have gotten lost in the shuffle, and I know that my work could sometimes use some refinement and editing. But aside from the instance surrounding that single letter... I've never merited a single word of encouragement from the editors. Hardly a pitiable sob story so far, I know, but please hear me out for just one more paragraph while I elaborate on the subtleties of this relationship as I see it.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
At the simplest level I've been a subscriber over various periods since the 90's (while picking up many more issues at the newsstands). That earns me a delivery of the publication and a heartfelt “thank you,” at best. Fine, I accept that. Then, when I was released from my time at the lunatic asylum, Adbusters was kind enough to print my brief note describing that experience and the event which led to me being admitted there (an act of public self-immolation, at the mall, on the day after
Thanksgiving). I appreciated the opportunity to clarify that experience and understand perfectly well that my regrettable action was neither well-conceived nor particularly endearing. I suppose surviving such an experience and being able to articulate anything about it is not enough to earn any sort of status as a non-commissioned freelance contributor. But I was never asking for the editorial staff to condone or support my specific actions, I simply feel like I might have a unique and relevant perspective which might be worthy of print. And these things alone are not really reflective of my unrequited support for Adbusters.<br />
<br />
The thing is... not only have I generally been left out to dry by Adbusters, but that institution has indirectly cost me <a href="http://www.opednews.com/author/author16382.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a cherished writing gig for OpEdNews.com</a>! Having previously submitted many well-received (albeit mild) articles which had been promoted to the headline section of that site... I presumed the right to criticize <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/chris-hedges.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a piece by Chris Hedges which had appeared in Adbusters</a>. I was consequently insulted via email by the esteemed editor of that website and then barred from submitting anymore. It was never even suggested, in an editorial capacity, that I might tone down the critique. It goes without saying that Adbusters didn't print <a href="http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10653" target="_blank">my critical response to Hedges</a>. But the real issue brought to light here is the difficulty one has when trying to present any real criticism of leftist/radical/progressive icons. I see Adbusters as part of the establishment in this regard and running counter to any
underlying theme which suggests they are open to criticism and willing to push radical dialogue. Sour grapes, I know. But Adbusters can publish a flawed piece which misrepresents many modern radicals and then any criticism of any such article is brushed under the rug. <i>(As a final point along the lines of this aside... I'd challenge everyone reading this to put prominent progressives and radicals more on the spot and ask the likes of Chomsky/Hedges/Jensen/Greenwald... “Who has presented the most valid criticism of your positions and which of your positions do you
personally have the most difficulty defending?) </i><br />
<br />
But I digress. More recently... I have been an early and consistent support of the
occupy movement. When the initial announcement of the idea came via email <a href="https://twitter.com/nihilozero/status/91344221629452289" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I immediately posted it on Twitter</a>. I then did a search for the #occupywallstreet hashtag on that site and no one had used it before me. <i>I'm fairly certain that I was the first person to use the #occupywallstreet hashtag on Twitter.</i> I also made an early blog post on the subject before it all kicked off, and then two follow-up posts during the early days of the protest when it wasn't receiving much attention. And, as insignificant as those contributions may have been, I want to point out that I've been <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/search/label/%23occupywallstreet" target="_blank">an active supporter of the movement from the start</a>. I also went down to the local incarnation of #OWS many times.<br />
<br />
Beyond that... I've been trying to challenge the status quo for much of my life. I've
written, from a radical perspective, well-received analysis of many protests. For example, I had the top search results for <a href="http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080811194820546" target="_blank">an article about the "RNC protest" in 2008</a> <i>while the event was happening</i>. Currently, as I write this, I have a first page
search result for “<a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2011/07/critique-of-google-plus-good-evil-and.html" target="_blank">Google critique</a>.” And it's simply a rarity for me to find someone who has created and distributed a broader variety of agit-prop (stickers, zines, leaflets, letters to the editor, et cetera). I was at the WTO protest in Seattle, a couple DNC protests, and have attended various anti-war protests and
corporate walks of shame. Recently I was<a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-continuing-protests-in-madison.html" target="_blank"> in Madison, Wisconsin as 100,000 people surrounded and occupied the capitol building</a>.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong though... I, too, often find autobiographical pieces like this one to be blustering, droll, and nearly insufferable. And, while it somewhat embarrasses me to spell these things out, I can't exactly put these things on an application at Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs. For better and worse... I have somewhat sacrificed any personal chance at a typical, arguably safe and secure, mainstream consumeristic life. It hasn't been all bad, of course, but the path I've personally went down has been one
of great hardship, stress, danger, inconvenience, pain, and suffering. I have all but literally been to hell and back. And yet... I continue to be insulted, slandered, spied upon, and generally misunderstood by polite society. This despite operating with
relative anonymity and/or behind my nom de plume – <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Nihilo Zero</a>.<br />
<br />
Anyway, further concerning my pride and vanity, let me just say that you don't arrive
at a major depressive episode and get diagnosed with dysthymia simply because of the pure admiration you have for yourself. So, while I will never attempt suicide again, I have led a life filled with many regrets and write this from a place of sincere humility. At this point I am an empty shell of half the man I used to be. I am scarred from head to toe, inside and out. I do still have some pride and a bit of dignity, but I also have many regrets and am truly sorry for many of the things I've done. My in-depth knowledge of pro wrestling sometimes embarrasses me. I am a real person.<br />
<br />
So... what is really the motivation for writing this? Like most other things in
life, that can't be summed up with simplicity. At the most superficial level I suppose I'd like some recognition for my contributions to radical discourse and my support for various radical struggles. I feel confident in standing behind anything I've written in my blog as being in favor of <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/10/small-part-of-what-it-is-that-inspires.html" target="_blank">basic freedoms, environmental sustainability, and general issues of social justice</a>. I feel I succeed at pushing the limits of political and philosophical discourse while writing from a fairly unique perspective. And I wonder if it's my lack of a formal education, my poor editing, or my pedestrian subject matter which prevents Adbusters from publishing my
work?<br />
<br />
But the recognition I seek is not purely for my ego (anonymous publication would also have been fine and was submitted with that possible condition). I often suspect that the government has a more complete picture of my activism than many of my closest friends (as I really don't carry on about it in person very much). And, because of that, I fear for my safety and freedom as <a href="http://anarchistnews.org/node/10958" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the level of political intolerance today is arguably surpassing that of the McCarthy era</a>. My relative anonymity and obscurity may actually
make me an easier target than a more well-know author or activist. Of course... maybe the feds don't want me to be more widely read either?<br />
<br />
In any case, it is my belief that the government is more of a threat to isolated
activists than most believe. I have had overt tails for weeks on end, have probably been successfully seduced by the more charming variants of agents, and I likely exist today in an infiltrated cooperative community. I have been poisoned at a major protest with strong psychedelics and leaflets suggesting suicide have appeared on my doorstep (before I foolishly took that advice). I even wonder about the time, as a
young radical in my mid 20's, when I was run down on my bicycle by a speeding snow plow (in 70 degree weather before the first snow of the season). It is almost impossible to imagine the depths of the villainous depravity to which agents of the state will stoop. The horror of your worst fears in these regards are probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms what's actually happening.<br />
<br />
I'll acknowledge the possibility of
having a touch of some justifiable paranoia, but that doesn't mean they are not after either or any of us.
It's potentially that touch of paranoia which I also feel might justify seeing my writings
published. At one level, it's part of pushing the envelope. At another... it's part of what makes me safe to other radicals and activists. This is because I assume that at least one of us is under heavy surveillance and absolutely do not want to be involved in the specifics of any illegal activities. I am only willing to discuss
the generalities and theory unless I'm defending a particular action which I have had nothing to do with. You can take that for granted, but I'm not trying to take a leadership role in some leftist hierarchy and don't want the power to be involved with specific actions related to any such organization. I'm not trying to
ingratiate myself in such a way and believe it's to my credit.<br />
<br />
Pardon me for digressing somewhat again – I don't always do that – but I was trying to explain why I'd like to be published by Adbusters and why I feel worthy of the honor.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned, I feel as though I've been consistent and ethical in regard to my blog. My focus can also be observed through my Twitter account (now mostly inactive) and by looking at my most successful posts on Reddit (where I also moderate <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchistnews" target="_blank">the r/AnarchistNews subreddit</a>). My writing has also been allowed to appear on the two most prominent anarchist news sites – <a href="http://news.infoshop.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">news.infoshop.org </a>& <a href="http://anarchistnews.org/">anarchistnews.org</a> – and I feel if it's consistently been good enough for them, then it might be good enough for Adbusters. Additionally... I've felt ahead of the curve in some regards. While some noted the root causes of the Arab Spring after the fact... I know of no one else who was bold enough to <a href="http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20101202133618214" target="_blank">make predictions about it a few months beforehand</a>. My <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2011/08/throughout-history-it-has-been.html" target="_blank">primer on activist security culture</a> is probably the only such primer that many people
have seen – and I feel it's comprehensiveness is to my credit. I've addressed a broad variety of topics from a radical perspective and feel that I've garnered some populist appeal in doing so. Are these not the sorts of things which Adbusters is looking to publish?<br />
<br />
If it's my flawed personal character or my past which is making any editor hesitant...
that's somewhat more understandable. I have a hard time coming to terms with the reckless and unwise actions of my youth. And, even if I were to meet myself today... I probably wouldn't show much tolerance. To say that I've often acted like a fool would be an understatement. But how many more decades must I be relegated to the
margins and exist as a veritable pariah for mistakes which I admit, regret, have suffered for, and continue to live with on a daily basis?<br />
<br />
My past actions and experiences have given me certain perspectives which I don't feel many bourgeois
radicals and activists can fully appreciate. For example... certain radical groups and philosophers suggest losing control, going wild, taking big risks, and being bold. That's all fine and good, but where are they after the fact? They speak to a broad audience but, when action is taken, they then only stand behind their
immediate friends and acquaintances – who are often merely milquetoast academics or formally trained artists who don't actually push the aforementioned limits. But one of my biggest flaws, ironically and arguably, is that I often counsel too much caution and prudence when it comes to young radicals contemplating some political
action. This might surprise those who knew me fifteen years ago, but it's the truth. You don't go through what I've went through (with the debriding, the surgeries, and everything else) without losing some very rough edges. So, while I suggest to aggressive young radicals that they should take a measured and calculating approach (while considering all the potential repercussions upon their lives), others seem to generally advise hastiness and throwing cautiousness to the wind. But again... where are they after the fact? It should be clarified if only moral support (at best) will be offered after you make a hasty or serious decision. I only mention this because
of what I've found in my own personal experience. More likely, after a challenging act of protest, there will remain the same old simple grudges and ideological or personal feuds – and you won't necessarily be in a better place to deal with these things after any particular action.<br />
<br />
<i>All of the above paragraphs, before this one, were written months ago</i> – before I completely ran out of steam. My physical, social and economic situation has deteriorated even more since then. I've done little but survive in the pallid squalor of what amounts to my life. I've aggregated some news, posted some snarky comments on some forums, and have briefly interjected my opinion in some passing conversations, but mostly I've watched TV, played video games (League of Legends), drank a bit, gained some weight, and have generally wasted away doing nothing.
I'd be remiss not to mention some epic games of peak-a-boo and the instance of a bat flying into my quarters, but those are simply brief respites in the process of my overall immiseration.<br />
<br />
I'm inclined to finish writing this now because I've recently been seeing<a href="http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/call-for-cultural-creatives.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> the call-out for submissions from Adbusters magazine</a>. The most recent one today was in the form of an email with the header stating: “<i>Adbusters is looking for fired-up,
postcool creatives.</i>” Well, I'll be damned if that doesn't sound something like me! Fired up? Yes, unfortunately, in a quite literal sense. Postcool? Well... I'm not sure if I was ever cool. And the request is from Adbusters! I'm sure I've generally worked for the cause of adbusting for many years now, despite certain consumeristic
foibles. So... <i>this is my submission</i>. This is me responding to the call.<br />
<br />
Now the question is, for me, whether or not this submission will be printed in Adbusters. I've had my words repackaged and reposted elsewhere on prominent websites by different people, but it almost seems like I mystically repel editors somehow – even if they really have no idea who I am, and even if they appreciate a watered down version of what I have to say when it's later presented by someone else. It almost has the feeling of a curse. And I know that I've taken an aggressive tone here with the title of this submission and the somewhat pathetically pompous picture I paint, but I don't know what other tone or tactic I've yet to try in attempting to get
published! It's also not lost upon me that far more talented and committed individuals must also fall through the cracks despite their contributions to any sort of a counterculture. But, maybe, if I can sprout up like a proverbial weed in the crack of the sidewalk... others will too.<br />
<br />
In a way... I'm writing this for everyone who has been marginalized, dismissed without a thought, and forsaken by those whom they'd expect otherwise.
To be perfectly honest... I don't have much faith in this being published. And I don't really take it personally that Adbusters has refrained from publishing any of my more more poignant articles. At this point I'm not even exactly sure why I ever started writing this piece in the first place. I only know that, if it's published, it would be nice if it were printed in it's entirety (<i>although I obviously can't be too picky about that</i>). While submitting it I will concurrently post it on my blog & on some forums and then I will get back to living at the height of a shallow mundanity. I'll watch some wrestling, eat some junk food, dream some empty dreams, not get around to finishing any other projects, and keep on keepin' on. I only wish everyone else was doing better than me.<br />
<br />
I think I might try to get more into Taoism.N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-38911779584402682122012-05-29T13:31:00.000-07:002012-05-29T13:32:36.887-07:00Julian Assange's: World Tomorrow. (Episode 7: The Occupy Movement)<iframe width="425" height="239" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h8JJo1RrgVc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-8366298819332260922012-04-30T18:21:00.000-07:002012-05-01T11:31:01.548-07:00Don't Go?! Get Real.<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Mifflin Street Block Party has become a right of passage for many students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Think what you may of it, it's a persistent event and has proceeded annually on the first Saturday in May since the 1960's. Although attempts have been made by the city and business interests to co-opt it, it will continue to take place with or without sanction.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The party had its origins in the sixties as an anti-war protest against the school's complicity with the military-industrial complex -- particularly in regard to the Dow Chemical corporation which was recruiting students to make napalm and agent orange. Additionally, the event became a dance party in the streets to show solidarity with the rebellion in France in '68. Police responded violently to the party, as is their wont, and the students fought back. This is undoubtedly part of the reason why Madison earned the reputation as being the "Berkeley of the midwest." </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As the party continued to manifest annually, thanks to the rebellious spirit of youthful students, it continued to have political messages tied with it. For example, in 1984, <a href="http://i.imgur.com/ds2eS.jpg">a commemorative t-shirt design was opposed to U.S. involvement with Nicaragua</a>. And, of course, this was fitting for an event such as this one in a progressive city such as Madison. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However, over the years, the authorities have attempted to co-opt the party. The city has given tenuous approval (of an event it couldn't stop) and businesses have been allowed to set up stages and push corporate booze. It might even be argued that the city and the university has encouraged drunkenness and apolitical revelry at this event. This is effectively what has happened (by design or not). </div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, when you really think about it, the University and City officials have an interest in maintaining a culture of drunken revelry -- not that I'm opposed to that revelry either, mind you. But, as the economic engine of the city, those institutions may not necessarily be opposed to drunken students taking 5 years to graduate (or more) -- as long as those students keep paying their tuition fees. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But even without such an insidious conspiracy, what kind of product is the University offering? Is it really worth the decades of debt that so many young people now face? Increasingly, that answer seems to be "no." <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/">Recent polls have indicated that the majority of recent graduates do not find employment in their fields of study (if they find work at all) and many are underemployed</a>. Even when a fitting job is found... the debt often remains an incredible burden. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The rise of tuition costs has far outpaced inflation and the effect of this has had many negative effects -- not all of which are obvious. Because of the incredible cost of higher education, students are no long as able to question the authority of the evermore corporatized campus administration. Walk-outs and involvement with campus protests are much more risky and potentially expensive. So students are in a catch-22. The administration can continuously push for harsher campus policies and students can't risk their academic careers in protest because they're heavily invested, indebted even, and they are forced to think more about their future careers in the technocratic system (which may never even pan out for them). This effect even extends into their professional lives because the student debt prevents them from challenging their employers over unethical practices. Essentially... higher tuition makes indentured servants of students whether they ever reap any rewards from the system or not. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
For these reasons, and many more, I am not incredibly opposed to the students at the University of Wisconsin (or any other university) attending an event like the Mifflin Street Block Party. Obviously, the worst drunken behavior is to be frowned upon -- but that type of behavior occurs anyway, and even at university-approved events (like the football games). So... it was no surprise when the UW Madison Dean of Students, Lori Berquam, was so panned for telling students to "don't go." But, ironically, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f13Oz3IvrHk">her condescending message</a> was potentially the best thing to happen for the Mifflin Street Block Party in years. Her video message served to inspire an anti-establishment sentiment that had been waning over the years. Of course her disapproval was going to be met with mockery by the student body! The event has never really been sanctioned by the University, or the city officials, and never needs to be. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And why should the students of UW Madison respect the administration?! The officials of the the university have been making a mint by corralling young people into debt without much promise for any real compensation. It's an evermore apparent reality that university students are being conned into buying an increasingly expensive and faulty product. At the same time... corporations are subsidizing the curriculum and the Madison isthmus has become one of the most policed jurisdictions in the country. Essentially, the pitch of UW Madison should be this... "Come buy an expensive degree that will hardly guarantee you employment, go into incredible debt without having anything tangible to show for it, and stay in line... or else." </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So the question is not whether students should gather and party at the Mifflin Street Block Party, but rather... why? Frankly, I'm not opposed to students merely gathering to defend their right to party. However, that motive can undermined and self-defeating. But we can look to the past and see ample reason for having a party in protest. Moreover, we can look at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b623JXHqnXg">contemporary student movements around the country, and around the world,</a> which are rising up, en masse, to challenge their university systems. Students in Montreal, Canada, have been on strike for weeks now and have rallied with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJeIs-q6Gx0">tens-of-thousands in the streets</a> -- all because of a proposed increase in tuition to US$2500/semester. Last year, in the UK, students made international news with their protests against anti-education policies (after <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlqfA712vU">storming the Tory party headquarters the year before</a>). In Chile there have been <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8a8B2_B9kg">major protests over the cost of education</a>. In California the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWBa20tygk0">students have occupied buildings and suffered police brutality</a> in their efforts to defend access to affordable public education. Similar protests have occurred in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs9VeDF9BYw">South Korea</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnMB7zv1AVQ">Argentina</a>, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPisxsV4S_o">elsewhere</a>. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Madison, with a history of progressive and radical protests, seems like the next logical place for people to stand up and defend their rights to an affordable education. Last year's mass protests at the capitol prove that Madison can bring people into the streets. And many of the issues related to that protest are incredibly relevant to the students as well -- with the Governor <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117193223.html">proposing $250 million dollars in cuts to the the UW system over the current two year period</a>. Governor Walker also proposes to remove Madison from the UW system while taking immediate personal control over the Board of Trustees by appointing 11 of the 21 members. So... the question is whether students want to allow the University (along with all other levels of education) to suffer massive budget cuts while becoming evermore corporatized. If not... this alone might be a good reason to protest. And if you do protest... you'll have the support of people all across the state, country, and world. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The choice is yours, as students, whether or not you want to tolerate the status quo or stand up for yourselves and your future. And you should be aware that the issues raised here are but <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/10/small-part-of-what-it-is-that-inspires.html">a small sample of the growing problems you will face in your lifetimes</a>. So a revived spirit of protest around the Mifflin Street Block Party should only be the start of radical changes that need to take place. Rising tuition costs are actually just second world problems, at worst. If you want a better world, and a better future, you'll need to take a stand and fight for all your rights.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2rRmFmA4w3A/T59YixUatZI/AAAAAAAAANA/Osx95LtA8CQ/s1600/3ozn5e.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="397" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2rRmFmA4w3A/T59YixUatZI/AAAAAAAAANA/Osx95LtA8CQ/s400/3ozn5e.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gmEoogQlFgk/T59X-WIgZpI/AAAAAAAAAM4/yLhaKxyqv_I/s1600/33954_3046006315491_1423149437_32213879_877391288_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gmEoogQlFgk/T59X-WIgZpI/AAAAAAAAAM4/yLhaKxyqv_I/s400/33954_3046006315491_1423149437_32213879_877391288_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="318" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fJeIs-q6Gx0" width="425"></iframe><br />
<br />
<i style="color: black;">If you've enjoyed this article... you may also like a previous article I've written (on similar subjects) entitled <a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/2010/09/values-of-college-education.html">Values of a College Education</a>. And, as always, I hope you'll consider sharing this article and subscribing to the blog. Cheers! </i><span style="color: black;"><br /></span>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-85516526186917202992012-04-30T18:13:00.001-07:002012-04-30T18:13:12.987-07:00What A Nightmare!<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="318" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aEi01NO6bzE" width="425"></iframe>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-33894907197844839792012-04-17T15:25:00.000-07:002012-04-19T20:25:26.427-07:00An Open Letter To Derrick Jensen<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dear DJ,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I hope you don't mind me addressing you
by your initials because that has simply become a habit of mine over
the years as I've spammed links to your articles and videos all over
the internet. Indeed, you have often given voice to certain issues
in a way that is very much appreciated. For that, I must thank you.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
However... I am inclined to write this
letter, and make it public, because I don't feel you adequately
address criticism from those of us who share many of your concerns
and much of your perspective. I can understand this lack of a
response in psychological terms because no one likes to be
criticized. Nevertheless, I feel that honestly acknowledging such
criticism could be beneficial to expanding the discussion about the
issues and ideas you champion. As I don't have much faith in getting
a response from you on any public forums, and because my time during
any Q & A period would undoubtedly be limited, I've chosen to
present my criticism and questions thusly.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Cutting to the chase, I must ask you
about the statements you gave to Chris Hedges in regard to militancy
within the #OccupyWallStreet movement and about the general level of
militancy which should be engaged in by activists located within the
borders of the United States. Do you stand by the statements he
attributed to you in his article entitled "The Cancer of Occupy"
and are those statements reflective of your current position? Specifically, I want to know if you stand by the following statement: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><b>“</b></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><i><b>If
you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for
acts of nonviolent resistance, if you see that the land is still
being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have
a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying
to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we
get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is
a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a
movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at
a cop because it is fun.” </b></i></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">If
you have repudiated these statements, I hope you will go to greater
lengths to make that repudiation more widely known. I try to pay
attention but have not noticed a public repudiation coming from you
-- I am, therefore, unfortunately left with the belief that you do
actually stand by those statements as quoted by Hedges. I've written
a fairly well-received critique of Hedges' article (you can find it
by searching for "<a href="http://anarchistnews.org/node/21630">The
Folly of Christopher Hedges</a>"), but here I'd like take issue
with your personal role in his dubious piece of intellectually
dishonest editorializing.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">For
starters, <a href="http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ogoni-vs-oil-giant-shell-0022089">Ken
Saro-Wiwa was essentially killed for his resistance to degradation
brought about by a western oil company</a> with petrol stations
distributing their products in the United States. This, in itself,
makes the struggle of Ken Saro-Wiwa a struggle for those of us living
here. To pretend otherwise is a prime example of the NIMBY attitude.
Because western corporations are merely killing environmental
activists overseas... that's not our problem and western activists
should not escalate their level of activism where those corporations
are based? I find that line of thought questionable. And I also
don't believe it would be vanguardist to act in solidarity with the
Ogoni people in this particular struggle. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">But
your statement also makes it seem as if environmentalists in the west
aren't brutalized and harshly mistreated. I hope you are at least
aware of what happened to <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/27/judi_bari_revisited_new_film_exposes">Judi
Bari & Darryl Cherney</a>? Theirs is a cautionary tale which all
environmental activists should know well. But that's merely the tip
of the iceberg and many environmentalists face violent attacks at the
hands of the U.S. government. And those that aren't killed often
face excessive legal hassles -- including tortuous incarceration. And,
like the Ogoni, we in the U.S. do, in fact, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>"<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf5AFyE6cw0">see
that the land is still being trashed.</a>"</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">
When, pray tell, would enough be enough? And why should it be
acceptable if such violence and degradation were only happening in
Nigeria or somewhere other than in our own personal backyards? It
must be reiterated... the exploitation of the environment and the
abuse of activists elsewhere often occurs at the behest of western
corporations which are facilitating the western lifestyles we see all
around us. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">You
suggest that we</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b> "</b></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">have
to go through the process of trying to work with the system and
getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We
can’t short-circuit the process." </span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is
that really your position now? We haven't worked within the system
enough and haven't been screwed enough? Well... I do hope you'll
start passing out voter guides and petitions at your talks then. I
mean... we must try to exhaust the possibilities of futility,
shouldn't we? But seriously... you don't think those trying to work
within the system have gotten screwed enough yet? Really?! So...
when precisely should our breaking point be? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6OE0YartWo">When
would enough be enough</a>? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP7OGW_JqqE">When
do we get to move beyond reformism</a>? Do you really think we
shouldn't try to "short-circuit the process"?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">And, as per your
quote, do you really think more militant action for social justice
and the environment is premature and that those engaging in such
actions are immature? Not only does that sound incredibly
condescending, but it is a betrayal of all those who have taken more
militant actions in the name of social justice or environmental
activism. And by militant I don't necessarily mean violent. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">You
suggest that </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">"</span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">We
can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop
because it is fun.’”</span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
But I pay attention to the radical press, I even go to see radical
speakers, and I know of no one who is seriously advocating any such
thing. This isn't to say that no one is using aggressive and
militant language, but no one is really suggesting such things simply
"because it's fun." And, particularly in regard to the
#occupy movement, the most aggressive action on the part of the
protesters has pretty much been some water bottles thrown at heavily
armed police. Sure, Starbucks and some banks got their windows
smashed in Oakland, but that's hardly thoughtless and it wasn't a
targeting of mom & pop shops. As I pointed out in my critique of
Hedges' awful piece... there are many <a href="http://www.infoshop.org/amp/bgp/BlackBlockPapers2.pdf">black
bloc communiques</a> that have been distributed (with the most
well-known probably being the <a href="http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/seattle_black_bloc.html">N30
Black Bloc Communique</a> [from the Seattle WTO meeting in '99])
which make it perfectly clear that corrupt and destructive
corporations are the primary targets of such essentially symbolic
(and actually non-violent) actions. These are usually very
calculated actions and those engaging in them are often informed and
dedicated individuals. I'd also like to point out that much of the
general public undoubtedly understands why a big bank, or some other
corrupt corporation, might get its windows smashed -- and such action
doesn't necessarily sadden or anger them. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">My primary concern
in this letter is whether or not you will stand by your statements as
quoted by Christopher Hedges in his recent article. Those statements
seem to be in stark contrast with the ideas which you've put forward
in the past and upon which you've built your reputation. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Finally, while I
don't want to get into a tone argument, I must question your act of
inviting even more scrutiny into your affairs by summoning the FBI to
investigate the death threats made against you over the internet.
Their agents may very well have been the ones placing those threats
against you. Again, just ask Judi Bari. And, despite your
assertions, such a situation isn't at all the same as a rape victim
going to the police. Millions who play online video games have
received such threats and big talk on the internet is not equivalent
to rape. I understand any fear you may have, and truly feel sorry
for you, but I also feel you've gone a bit too far in trying to
justify a potential mistake you've made. I feel it was a mistake to
seek out the assistance from, and legitimize the authority of, the
butchers of Pine Ridge. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">And while I wouldn't
want this to be an irreconcilable point of contention between us, I
also recognize that you probably aren't confronted with much sincere
pointed criticism. My only hope is that you will respond calmly and
civilly. And know that even a text as benign as this one, which
calls for no specific action, is more than enough to thoroughly pad a
file. But this isn't my first trip to the rodeo and I choose not to
live in fear. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Sincerely,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Nihilo
Zero</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://nihilo0.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-size: small;">RadicalPhilosophy.NotLong.Com</span></a></div>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-43531535155549453922012-03-24T09:09:00.000-07:002012-03-24T09:15:24.984-07:00Racist Murderers In The United States Of AmericaThe tragedy of Trayvon Martin cannot be understated. An innocent young man was shot down for, apparently, little reason other than the color of his skin. This was a terrible sort of event which continues to be repeated in the United States and in other parts of the world. Race-based violence is, unquestionably, one of the most odious aspects of daily life in many places. If society is to truly advance in any meaningful way... this is something which must be adequately addressed. <br />
<br />
But there is something about this specific case which strikes me as peculiar. I find it interesting that the highest elected government officials have joined the chorus in calling for justice regarding this incident. Of all potential cases to capture the imagination, I find this one to be relatively arbitrary in its uniqueness. Young men of color are being shot down every day in modern America and, as horribly tragic and unfortunate as this particular instance was, it just personally doesn't shock me any more than many other cases. What is it about this case that's captured the attention of the media and government officials?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
When Sean Bell was gunned down by the NYPD on his wedding day it didn't receive this kind of attention. When Oscar Grant was shot in the back while handcuffed and laying face-down on the ground... I don't remember Obama mentioning it or seeing as much national media attention. So one can't help but to wonder... if the shooter of Trayvon Martin had been a salaried official of the local police department, does any one really believe the media and the President would be as quick to push this incident to the forefront of the national consciousness? That certainly wouldn't be in keeping with similar events which regularly transpire. <br />
<br />
While this sad incident involving Trayvon Martin may or may not have been racially motivated, statistical and anecdotal evidence abounds in regard to systemic racist violence occurring under the auspices of official government policy. Only the most inept, racist, or frightened would fail to acknowledge this. And while I'm generally inclined to provide more statistical data when writing opinion pieces on such issues, I'd hardly even know where to begin amidst the vast abundance of data in regard to this particular subject.<br />
<br />
So... why is there so much official interest and media hype in regard to this particular incident? For starters... it appears that the shooter may have been a person of color himself. This would fit a common narrative within this society and makes it more presentable in the minds of the corporate press and the government. But regardless of whether or not the shooter claims any sort of minority status, the bigger issue may be that he was not an official security agent of the state. Rather, instead, he was likely just an overzealous neighborhood watchmen. Despite official agents of the state killing, abusing, and imprisoning people on a regular basis... this incident draws more official condemnation and press attention precisely because it was a wayward citizen and not an official agent of the state. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt the shooter would be in nearly as much trouble if he had an official badge rather than just community sanction.<br />
<br />
Reading this opinion thus far... you might have guessed that I'm not the most right-wing ideologue. But I think the right may have one issue being raised by this incident which is legitimate. The event at hand will be used by the government to further restrict the public's right to bear arms and general access to guns. The state will overlook the incessant violence carried out by its own agents and will highlight this incident as exemplary evidence of why further gun control measures must be taken. Those right-wing groups who point out that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" are, actually, correct in that logic. And that group of outlaws they mention would very much include government officials, agents of the state, and police forces across this land. <br />
<br />
Conversely, it's flawed logic that leads one to believe that the mere presence of guns in society leads to more gun violence. This was shown to be erroneous by the documentarian Michael Moore in his film Bowling For Columbine. The issue isn't guns creating violence, the issue is a corrupt system, through and through, which creates a violent society. Other nations effectively have as many guns as America, but the United States is the murder capitol of the western industrialized world. And this has nothing to with Americans being genetically more predisposed to violence. Rather... the issue is that the government of the United States is one of the most brutal in the world. From foreign wars to the prison-industrial complex, the U.S. government is undeniably aggressive and violent. And this is the government which will now try to use this sad incident at hand to further curtail its own constitutional law in limiting public access to means of self-defense.<br />
<br />
I doubt the family of Trayvon Martin will read this and, if they do, I want them to know that I am truly sorry for their loss. And I'm also sorry if this incident is being politicized in any way which they disagree with. However, for my part, I will not simply allow the government to feign sympathy for their loss while creating even more tragedy for so many other people. It would be nice if Obama had truly ushered in a less racist manner of life in the United States, but that hasn't happened and doesn't appear to be sincerely on his agenda. Brown people continue to be killed on a daily basis overseas and more black men are currently imprisoned in the U.S. than were ever enslaved at any point before the Civil War. This is the modern state of violence and race relations in the United States. <br />
<br />N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32552056.post-27861938583849235202012-03-01T14:46:00.000-08:002012-03-01T14:46:43.511-08:00Trust and RelationshipsOur willingness to express our hopes and fears is matched by the
proportional likelihood that we will be manipulated and exploited
accordingly. This isn't to say specifically how often the latter will
happen when we open up, but people are undoubtedly manipulated along
these lines by those they've trusted. The breakdown of the family in
modern America suggests a limitation of unconditional love and almost
everyone has witnessed basic betrayals of trust. Many of us have,
consequently, become more guarded when establishing relationships. Our
subsequent lack of openness further impedes our ability to form various
forms of relationships and this, in turn, creates a negative feedback
loop based upon the fact that we know information is being withheld from
us -- which causes us to be more suspicious of others and, therefore,
emotionally guarded and distant. <br />
Politically, when the realities of surveillance and opportunistic
maliciousness are added, issues of trust and healthy relationships are
complicated further. We have a difficult time simply establishing basic
personal relationships, but establishing trusted political alliances
can be far more daunting. It's possible to get lucky in terms of love
or affinity groups, but it would be better if luck were less of a
necessary factor in these regards.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="318" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YYym554_Vmg" width="425"></iframe>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="318" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fdGkrvOHrHc" width="425"></iframe>N. Zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11280089601231142195noreply@blogger.com0