Nihilo Zero

Tweeters I Tweet with on Twitter (an updating list)

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:39:00 +0000

Despite my somewhat tongue-in-cheek bashing of Twitter.com a while back, I've come around over the past several months and now find it to be a really great resource to find & spread some good information with some interesting and intelligent people. Our philosophies all differ somewhat, of course, but I've networked with several people over the past few months whose links I gladly pass on and who often retweet the articles I present for consideration. Most of these folks on this list aren't "twitterati" but are interesting and informative people who often spread information about social struggles, the environment, and freedom in general.

If you're new to twitter or are looking to expand your account in an edifying direction, I'd suggest subscribing to some of the following people on this list (which will continue to grow). Also, if you're new, I'd suggest getting some sort of browser extension or tool (like Power Twitter) which will expand links and make videos & images viewable directly from your feed. Twitter takes some time to get used to and you're not going to have a following right away but, if you stick with it, you may be able to build a valuable and edifying social media network. ALWAYS CLICK MORE!

The List...

NihiloZero: This is my twitter page, of course, and if you follow my account I'm sure you'll discover that I am the greatest twitterer in the entire twittersphere. I'm not much of a conversationalist on the network, but I retweet quite a bit and try to post quality links about #freedom, the environment (#eco), the #economy, and various #protest movements (re: #antiwar, #greenpeace, #g20). Check out my lists!

RayBeckerman is the closest thing to Twitter elite that I regularly follow and RT. Although he engages in much more conversation than I do, he still finds plenty of time to present plenty of quality links to articles about indigenous rights issues and the environment. He's generous with retweets and generally seems like a pretty nice guy.

mparent77772: Ok, so I regularly follow at least one other elite tweeter. While not as conversational or as generous with RT's as RayBeckerman, this person posts a lot of very interesting links and is certainly worth following (you'll likely get followed back). From his own description: "Blogger - Interwebber on politics, finance, news, media, society, government, the internets - CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER"

Kaskadia is "Internetworking in the virtual world towards a sustainable physical one," and posts several quality links about ecological sustainability.

iRevolt Maintains a high-quality news site which focuses largely on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

SydneyHomeless: Out of Australia (surprise), Sydney Homeless posts a lot of provocative links which will really make you question the systems of power in this world.

uriohau: Also from Australia, uriohau is an indigenous rights and anti-glottalization activist who spreads a lot of good information.

toxicsoup: Originally I thought this was an account for some band (maybe it is?) but, apparently, Toxic Soup refers to a movie about pollution. Go figure. In any case... toxic soup posts a lot of quality content about... you guessed it, environmental sustainability.

ClimateActivism: You'll never guess what this twitter feed is about.

GMWatch: From the UK, this is a page which posts about sustainability and food safety issues -- particularly in regard to the dangers posed by genetically engineered organisms.

jewishanarchist: "government is structural violence and capitalism is organized crime." Lots of high quality radical information being tweeted. Highly recommended. It doesn't show, but I'd guess this person is even more scared than me. Lots of phonies out there, but I don't think this person is one of them.

davidhodgson: A generous retweeter of high quality content. One of my favorite people to follow.

Satyagraha_ji: With a nod to Gandhi, this is one of my favorite Tweeters. This person posts several quality tweets about peace, the environment, and freedom. Perfect for all you peaceniks.

anarchists: You're just gonna have to guess the brand of anarchism you'll find presented. Lots of good stuff from the anarchist press.

Noetical is also busy on her Newsvine page and posts a lot valuable information from a progressive perspective.

1txsage1957: "Liberal Blogger, Lesbian, w/ MultipleSclerosis peacemonger, activist, buddhist, citizen journalist, political, truth teller-seeker, friend, green fiend, etc."

1D4TW: I can't get past the scary Lenin-esque profile pic, but nevertheless... Max Forte posts some quality content and deserves some props.

Si_Jose & ThereIsAWayJose: Peace activist, vegetarian, Indigenist. Posts lots of quality content and is very conversational. Was a supporter for the #nosamsclub protest movement -- against the building of a Sams Club on a sacred burial mound.

I've undoubtedly left somebody off the list... please forgive me. This is a list in progress and it will be regularly updated.

tweeple, tweeples, tweeting, twitters, twits, twitphilia & twitanoia. RT!

Revolution is not just a word, but why revolt?

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:55:00 +0000

Revolution is not a word often used today in the meaningful way that it was in the past. The mildest reform or a new safety net put in place is often considered revolutionary. Advertisers of the latest product frivolously use the word in a way that nevertheless seems to subconsciously convey the inspirational meaning it had in the past. Smug academics and mainstream political partisans seem to scoff at the idea that a true revolution of values could occur by means of actual revolutionary activity. Others are so placated by the modern bread and circuses that they fail to notice growing crisis all around them.

This article is written with the intention of showing why a revolution is necessary and offers suggestions about how to make one manifest in practical reality.

Why Revolt?

With a little searching on Youtube (or another less-censored site) you will find a near endless stream of videos documenting elderly people getting tazed and having their skulls cracked by the police. You'll find videos of little girls getting beaten and maced by male-bodied pigs. Despite censorship, you'll even find videos of cold-blooded murder at the hands of the police. Mind you... this is merely what gets caught on video -- and represents only a very small fraction of the police violence that takes place every single day in the USA).

In addition to the street-level violence, the police forces in the United States then help incarcerate more people at a rate seen no where else on earth. More people are imprisoned in the U.S. than in any other nation (both in total numbers AND per-capita). Millions of people get cycled through the U.S. prison-industrial complex every year. No nation on earth imprisons more people than the "land of the free."

America, the USA, is THE police state, and the extreme subjugation of millions of individuals is big business -- entire towns now spring up around large prisons (complete with motels for visiting relatives and services and shops for the prison employees), and that's on top of the economics involved with the court systems and police equipment.

Environmental Degradation

The extent of environmental degradation is almost too overwhelming to even begin considering. However, without facing the problems collectively a person can't effectively understand the systemic quality of the multitude of threats facing the biosphere.

Dealing with just one problem at a time can leave us vulnerable to another advancing disaster. The idea that one problem can be reformed away then becomes muted because the process of reform generally does not, and can not, deal with several major issues at once. As inneffectual as reform efforts have been at dealing with the issue of global warming, for example, imagine how much more difficult those reform efforts become if they concurrently or simultaneously addressed the issues of deforestation, the Pacific garbage vortex, strip-mining, desertification, dioxin releases, the 6th extinction, et cetera, etc. In the face of such a collective crisis, the slow road of piecemeal reformism will not protect life on earth.

Similarly, the idea of setting a personal example (in terms of personal consumption) does not guarantee the preservation of life on earth. It's a quaint idea, but one that looks to the realm of spiritualism and blind faith, rather than at reality. Even if a good example was set and followed, in terms of consumption, there is no guarantee that enough people would follow it or that those who didn't wouldn't pick up the slack. Like reformism, personal lifestyle choices do play a part in terms of preserving the environment. The problem is that people are not looking beyond themselves at the complete issue of how much damage is being done by other organizations that are not curbing their overall destruction at all. Directly putting a stop, by any environmentally sound means necessary, to major polluters or sources of destruction, can be far more effective than large groups of individuals ceasing their personally destructive activities in the spiritual hopes than everyone else will follow suit.

A Variety of Wars and Their Consequences

The depletion of natural resources is a primary cause for wars. And I'm not even referring yet to fuels and mineral products used for production and consumption purposes -- I'm talking about things like fresh potable water, land, and clean air. As the world population continues to grow, access to the basic necessities of life becomes more difficult and attempts to acquire those things become more desperate on an individual and a collective level.

Obviously, the connection between militarism and environmental degradation is clear. But this fact is easily clouded by other pretenses for war such as archaic ethnic conflicts and the desire for fuels & mineral products used for production and consumption purposes. What then gets overlooked with this situation is that the preservation and defense of natural resources at local levels can prevent some causes of war.

But aside from necessities, wars undertaken by the U.S. today are largely about petroleum oil. High ranking public officials have been blunt about this, and if anyone still has doubts about this they are simple-minded (to put it nicely).

The U.S. government spends incredible amounts on it's military. Having paid for it's gigantic army, it now needs fuel. Faced with peak oil (another idea ought to be easily and clearly understood), the wars in foreign lands are not about liberating the people there or fighting international terrorism. The wars in the Middle East are not even about maintaining relatively cheap oil for SUV drivers. The wars are about securing fuel for the military machine that's already been bought and paid for. In the final analysis, the U.S. government plans on having the only army which still has fuel to wage a total war. At that point, the U.S. will be an empire more destructive and brutal than any other in history (even to a greater extent than it already has been).

Considering the global system upheld by the U.S.A., and the level of destruction it is currently engaged in (at so many levels and in so many forms), it is not out of the question that the U.S. will use another nuclear weapon. The leaders of this rogue nation have shown themselves to be completely without ethics and insincere about any real humanitarian efforts -- they have, in fact, shown themselves to be insane (by almost any standard of definition). Their insanity and clear lack of ethics is what will allow them to launch a nuclear strike without fear of comparable retaliation. They have shown themselves capable of risking mutually assured destruction and, if they resign themselves to only attacking relatively weak nations for the purposes of fuel, who, what other nation, will risk entering into the fray with them? At that point, the U.S. empire will be completely dominant and, as long as it's leaders spread the wealth around to other leaders of nuclear-capable nations... those leaders will subdue their own populations at the behest of the U.S. empire.
One might argue that the U.S. government would not do such a thing because it would fear a domestic backlash. But I suggest, with it's police force in place, that the U.S. government does not fear it's population very much at all. In fact, much of the U.S. population, bamboozled by the corporate media, supports the U.S. government unconditionally. The brutal suppression of protest movements and a truly Orwellian level of surveillance also suggests that the U.S. government will be able to ruthlessly control it's population when push comes to shove -- even if it has to resort to much harsher methods. You will rise for the anthem -- or else. You will watch what you say -- or else. Any real exercise of freedom today can already be expected to result in unpleasant reprisal from a government that claims to defend that freedom.

For all the populist bluster about defending the Constitution, who actually has? That dried up piece of paper has been effectively neutralized -- and it doesn't matter if you realize it or not. The government treats the Constitution like a Wikipedia page, effectively changing and restoring it as seen fit. It was a fundamentally flawed document to begin with anyway and was written by genocidal slave-owners. That's the history of America -- and not so much has really changed. For all the fine quotes about freedom left for posterity by the founding fathers of America, how many more were, then and since, willfully working against those ideas of liberty? Considering quotes from Jefferson or Madison as emblematic of their time is like thinking Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are typical members of modern congress. Revisionist history might remember them as highly influential (while overlooking their flaws), but the death march of industrial state corporatism marches on.

Do Not Let Fascists Destroy the Environment While Taking Over the World

I've explained elsewhere, in other articles (with several references), why the current U.S. government should appropriately be considered fascist. Briefly, for the sake of completeness, I'll just point my readership to Mussolini's definition of "corporatism" and leave it at that. If any person ever knew anything about fascism it should be that rotted corpse. More lively, and less fascistic people, like Naomi Wolf & Naomi Klein, have also made strong cases in regard to this definition of the U.S. political system.

How should revolutionary resistance against this fascistic empire be orchestrated?

This is the world-changing question and my answer to it gives few guarantees. The main thing a revolutionary needs is awareness of the global situation and the stakes we are fighting for. With this knowledge comes the freedom to act without fear of personal loss -- because it's all going to be lost anyway, including your dignity as a human being, if no action is taken. You can either remain inactive as your freedom, your community, your loved ones, and the environment, are all systematically destroyed OR you can organize your life and fight back.

Perhaps the most difficult part of revolutionary organization is finding other sincerely devoted revolutionaries to coordinate your activities with. This is difficult for a number of reasons.

Generally, people in modern America are dumbed down and easily distracted. As much as people may think think that I'm pushing the Kool-Aid with this piece, they ignore the the pushers of patriotic American blindness that have dished the stuff out for hundreds of years. They push it to us as children at school, in church, at home, on the TV, in the malls and on the highway. We are told lies every single day through the simple nature of our consumeristic culture. We are led to believe that this is the only way, the best way, and that we had better stick with it to make it even better. And most people never see through this clearly. They can't get past it. It's too emotionally taxing for them to face and too physically threatening for them to resist -- even if they intellectually start to suspect that something just isn't right.

Conversely, it is difficult to find competent allies because many of those who are competent will have already masked their revolutionary activities. The difficulty of finding sincere individuals is also complicated
by simple philosophical and personally idiosyncratic differences. It's a catch-22 because the easier it is to find and involve yourself with active radical individuals (with whom you are compatible), the more likely it will be that their security culture has been compromised. Tolerance and cooperation with any and all suggests low standards which can easily be exploited by the state. For that reason, bonds need to be formed early on OR by means of a gradual process. Jumping into the fray with a serious action alongside someone you just met can be very dangerous to your health and freedom. The more serious you are, the more likely you will be to encounter more serious, more covert, opposition from the state. (A word needs to be said about above-ground and underground radicals, but I will try to conclude with that in the final section.) On a similar note, it has been suggested that revolutionary radicals should have children because their actions will largely offset the effects of some slightly increased demands of overall consumption.

Where to stablish a base of operations for a radical community is also a big question. A common revolutionary suggestion (which goes back historically to at least the 19th century "Narodnichestvo" movement in Russia) is that radicals should go live amongst lowest, most abused classes. At some point that may have been an appropriate suggestion (despite the complications which developed), but I think the landscape (politically and topographically) has been altered in many ways that make this a less effective strategy today.

To go live amongst the poorest today you would have to go into lands where people are, in some cases, completely disenfranchised and dying of hunger. Even in the U.S. such a strategy would suggest going to the veritable gutter where the police presence is constant. As much as I sympathize with the dire plight of inner-city residents and the hardships they constantly face, I can only recommend leaving the large ghettoized death-traps at any opportunity whenever possible. Even relatively well-to-do cities have serious impending issues and are not at all sustainable. This is not to say that all radicals will actually leave those locales but, if they don't, they should organize even more aggressively as above-ground activists against police brutality and in favor or urban green spaces. Also, solidarity actions can be taken with city-dwellers when needed -- even if you leave the city yourself.

I'm not suggesting that those confined to big city life should be completely abandoned and forgotten, but I don't think the most effective long term activities can be undertaken in the belly of the beast. The cities will break down to constant urban warfare and the state will have much concentrated power there. If you choose to stay and fight on that ground you will probably suffer great losses (and romanticizing about the flavor of industrial centers is self-deluding).

The safest and most effective place to operate and build community is near a wilderness area which is threatened by destruction but which also still remains largely intact. The benefits of living near such an area are plentiful.

While still having access to standard civilized resources, a community established in such a locale will be able to begin providing for itself by learning what the wilderness provides in a natural sustainable way. This can include hunting wild game and making use of vegetation in a sustainable manner. Additionally, some compromise might be made in establishing sustainable permaculture gardens (while simultaneously working to preserve and restore the nearby wilderness).

Another benefit of living near a threatened wilderness area is the ability to protect it. This can be done in a number of ways -- ranging from the sabotage of destructive industrial tools to more typical acts of protest and working within local politics to hinder destructive or oppressive activities (whether these activities are sponsored by the state or a corporation). The politics of local reform can be clouded by the roles of above-ground and underground revolutionaries, but it's not always necessarily an either/or situation -- local reform can supplement more radical direct actions.

Related to the last point, and having to do with a relatively low population density, is the lack of an overwhelming police force in most wilderness areas. This may change somewhat depending on the success and nature of the defensive environmental activities, but again... working within small local governments can reduce the chances of the local police forces growing.

One Basic Outline of a Sustainable Revolutionary Network

Let's hypothetically consider an endangered forest of 1000 square miles... A dozen small permaculture farms could be established around the perimeter of this forest (where it was already clearcut and somewhat developed), each farm could be run by 12 or so radicals working along the lines already suggested.

Each farm could have at least one person with the task of regularly keeping in contact with the other farms (for purposes of trade and general updates about any variety of projects or activities). Additionally, small primitive camps could be established within the forest for other understood purposes related to it's defense.

Each farm community would likely have its own character and work on slightly different goals. Some farms could be almost completely off the radar in terms of activity (engaging in very little illicit activity), while others could establish a base for the sabotage of deforestation equipment. One farm might house a politician for the local city council or even a secretary for the logging company. Another might host a weekly farmers market or a vegetable stand. One might offer a public face in terms of hosting people curious about permaculture or forest activism -- while others may not be in favor of any guests at all.

The communication and coordination between the farms could be great or small depending on their individual natures and/or the projects they are currently working on at any given time. The above-ground public farms could defend the actions of anonymous eco-saboteurs with various forms of propaganda while another could be ready to provide shelter in the event of a raid or harassment. When someone gets arrested the farms could coordinate fund-raisers to help pay for legal assistance (or they could have other contingency plans to work for any individuals freedom).

Some farms would offer friendly public outreach while others would seem pretentious, curt, and dismissive towards outsiders. Establishing effective networks and habits of security culture would be essential at all times. Wanting to know about illegal activities could often even be discouraged if the details of a project are sensitive.

This is not to say that all participants in this network couldn't or shouldn't be friendly and open with one another! On the contrary! But everyone should understand any potential limitations of their current role at any given time as a member of any particular farm.

The locations of the permaculture farms should be spread out in such a way that the most actively militant community should not be situated right next to the other 2 militant underground farms.

By means of assorted propaganda, the subtle idea of networks such as this could be spread discretely to others in the surrounding area who may be sympathetic. This could include outreach to groups or individuals who are still in a highly urbanized area. One farm could be established to observe potential candidates for "work" on other more radical farms.

Above-Ground and Underground Activities

The state is merciless and vigilant. Even you if you are merely using your supposed right to free speech, serious criticism of the government and big business will eventually draw the attention, ire, and wrath of both. Most people have no idea how harsh and brutal the government can be because they've never really done anything to challenge or oppose it. When violations of personal freedoms occur, even grievous violations, the general public is unaware and/or unconcerned. Even relatively mild and unknown radicals face a wide variety of persecution and harassment techniques. It is, in part, the above-ground radical's responsibility to make these things clear.

In many ways, the public radical must be more cautious than the underground radical. Pushing the limits of free speech is only one of her responsibilities. But, especially if working with others, she must be cautious to never violate security culture or reveal the subversive and illegal activities of other radicals -- unless they explicitly want to be associated with those activities. Not everyone wants all of their solidarity actions to be widely known at all times (even if they are public, above-ground radicals). With that in mind, communication networks must be maintained with discrete caution.

Underground radicals must be especially cautious about the friendly associations they have and the networks they involve themselves with. It may behoove the most militant to avoid getting on any lists or discussing serious politics publicly at all (and I would consider electronic communications to be, essentially, public). It's a fine line to be sure, and one may go unnoticed being on the mailing list of a mainstream organization like the ACLU, Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Adbusters, but regularly visiting some of the more radical websites & forums, or attending overtly radical public meetings, will inevitably bring you some unwanted attention. Underground radicals who are engaged in illegal activities may be less likely to get discovered if they are discrete, but if they get caught they face more certain and extreme retribution.

Some risks need to be taken in an effort to restore freedom and protect the environment -- but it is important to factor in some key variables to decide upon what actions to take. The first thing one perhaps ought to consider is... how likely are you to get away with any particular illegal radical action? The more likely you are to get away with it, the less significant the action needs to be. On the other hand, it's a numbers game of probability. If you are constantly flaunting the law every day, you increase the chances of eventually getting caught (even by things like a random police stop -- or the mailman noticing something fishy). So... an effective radical should consider the impact of any particular action. The impact can be very tangible (e.g., the lumbermill is dismantled or the funds are appropriated) or the impact may be largely symbolic (as when an effective tactic like tree-spiking or washing out a logging road, for instance, can be made public and then be emulated by others).

The police forces and their directly related suppression of the general public are likely to expand in scope regardless of any particular action. This is facilitated by the demonization of things like non-violent consensual crimes (e.g., drug dealing and use). It very well could be that the drug laws are not wholly established because of some puritanical objection to drug use so much as that pretense provides a cover for the build-up of the massive police forces which are now in place. The state has an interest in keeping some level of thoughtless crime continuing because it can use the same built-up police forces (which were ostensibly put in place to fight petty crimes) for the more political use of suppressing dissidents. The same thing goes with public surveillance systems.

With draconian punishments and brutal police responses... the punishments start to blur. It likens to a poverty-stricken "third strike" ex-con who is facing a life sentence. This person may decide, for economic reasons, to smuggle drugs in large quantities because the punishment is the same for dealing a kilo as it is for dealing a gram. If being stopped, for even the pettiest crime, this person may resist arrest with reckless violent abandon since, either way, he's going down hard if caught. So, for example, if dissent in a public forum starts to get you in as much trouble for shutting down a strip mine... you might as well shut down the strip mine (if you're just as likely to get away with it). The point is... potential punishment, and the necessity for the action, should be considered along with the likelihood of getting away with any particular illegal activity. And, often, you can do as much damage to the system by sometimes using less regulated tools (for example, causing water damage as opposed to fire damage can sometimes be just as effective while not posing as great a legal risk if caught).

The bottom line is that you need to put yourself in a position where you can tear the system down effectively, symbolically and/or physically, with little chance of getting caught and, ideally, with as little punishment as possible if you are. It's as simple and as complicated as that. If the system continues to progress as it has, we are all going down hard anyway.

Mistakes I've made and things I've tried to correct...

In closing, I would like to mention why I write the things I do and how I've had more and less success at defending myself from the state's retribution.

My life is not one without regrets. I am an empty shell of half the man I used to be. I've made horrible mistakes in which I take very little pride. Many things I've done have been ineffectual and misinterpreted. But no one can undo the things they've done and all I can try to do is move on as constructively as possible.

That said... I would like to suggest that state harassment for relatively minor things can prompt more desperate and extreme actions. If you are blatantly followed for weeks on end (an occurrence many reputable people can tell you personal stories about), it's possible that you may begin to think and behave irrationally because of the natural fear you feel. And, while the murder of political dissidents is relatively covered-up in the U.S., well-cited stories abound of such things occurring (if you care to examine the subject). And, in the U.S., you may be more likely to get poisoned by the government with psychotropic drugs than you are with lethal substances. In such a subsequently compromised state of mind, you are less likely to respond appropriately or prove the source of the drugging. This can also make you think and behave irrationally overall -- to the general detriment of your activities. The government's well-known experimentation with psychotropic drugs was part of their general psy-ops program, and I suggest this is still used to marginalize, compromise, and generally endanger political dissidents. These kinds of tactics may be more likely used on smaller and less-organized groups and individuals without much public attention (but I have heard that attempts were made to dose and incapacitate even people as prominent as Fidel Castro [although I wouldn't classify him at all in the same category as a radical freedom fighter or militant environmentalist]).

With all this in mind, and in light of the things I write, I try to protect myself legally as best I can. I assume I am under surveillance, at some level, because of the things I currently write and the things I've done in my ever-more-distant past. I never discuss or involve myself with specific illegal activities planned or undertaken by radicals (unless I am defending someone after the fact or expressing approval for an anonymous action). I avoid drugs if they are not over-the-counter, and I usually try to drink just at home. I am not at all belligerent or aggressive with the police when confronted by them in person and I try to maintain a good working knowledge of any supposed rights I may have (currently on my desk is the Law Officer's Pocket Manual and three of ACLU's handbooks entitled, The Right to Protest, Your Right to Privacy, and The Rights of Authors, Artists, and Other Creative People). I am an above-ground radical and can't afford to involve myself with illegal radical activities beyond offering general moral support and broadly theoretical discussion. Nevertheless, ironically, the state probably knows more about me than even some of my closer acquaintances -- and so I thought I'd just put this all out in the open.

I am writing this now because social-networking has allowed me to reach more people than ever before and I feel like this might actually get some circulation and be read. Also, I felt that there was a shortage of clear radical blueprints and ideas intended to actually mount a serious resistance against the oppressive and diabolical forces of the corporate state. My goal with this piece was to show a general audience that radical ideas are still in circulation (for the time being) and that they are practical as well as necessary -- now more than ever.

I don't pretend that this piece was fully comprehensive or without any errors (theoretical or otherwise). I invite others to correct errors and/or offer suggestions regarding the subject matter of this article. If you feel safe in doing so, and if you enjoyed reading this article (even if merely as a lark), I encourage you to comment, re-post, link to, and forward this article.

As someone who is living well below the poverty line, I'd also like to offer my proof-reading and editorial services to any radical publications that may need cheap help. If anyone could forward this article's link to some people like Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein, Angela Davis (featured in the video above), Ward Churchill (an author who writes about indigenous rights), or any radical environmentalist organizations that might be able to provide some mutual aid... that would be appreciated. I have found my writing and activism to be rather thankless work and would like to be able to continue working on these projects in a more impactful manner. I apologize for this informal and self-serving conclusion, but I hope the ideas presented in this article speak for themselves and serve a greater purpose towards a healthier world and a future of freedom.

Why and how I oppose the G-20

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:56:00 +0000

As they ride in limousines from their mansions to sip champagne with the other aristocratic oligarchs, I don't feel that the G-20 leaders really understand or care about the state of the world or the people in it. It is my contention that they believe their opulence and power is well deserved – despite the wars they orchestrate and the suffering they intentionally allow to continue. Hundreds of millions go hungry each day around the globe and the G-20 ministers facilitate the policies which allow that so that they may maintain the status quo of their power. They are the modern day ladies and lords of the kingdom and they rule over others as if they were serfs or slaves (which for all practical matters they are).

Even if they were benevolent, which they are not by any means, their concentrated power would be dangerous and illegitimate. They serve themselves and the 1% of the population which owns 40% of the worlds assets (while others are confined to poverty and more are driven into it each day [in 2000 the bottom 50% of the world's adult population owned barely 1% of the world's wealth]). The G-20 leaders preside over an unprecedented ecological collapse while propping up destructive industries and pretending to be saviors each time they are forced to enact some token reform. They perpetuate an economic system which should properly be called fascism (corporate socialism) and destroy large numbers of people along with the environment.

Of course, not every instance of every type of problem is directly caused by the G-20 Central Bank Governors & International Finance Ministers, but when the U.S. government bailed out the international banks (to the tune of $Trillions), this was a direct handout of of taxpayer dollars to to the elite corporate bankers -- with hardly any strings attached. It was a plain robbery of the taxpaying masses. If this money had been given in the name of the people, it would have been (more or less) socialist. However, since this money was given directly to multi-national corporate banks... it amounts to corporate socialism (fascism).

By the essential definition, and in many other noteworthy ways, the G-20 group of Central Bank Governors & Finance Ministers (along with the leaders of their respective nations) are fascists. This, of course, will be denied by the leaders themselves and the masses over whom they rule, but a fascist by any other name smells as sweet (if it walks like a duck [to mix a metaphor]).

The fact that most of the masses do not recognize the the type of organization which governs their lives, or the fact that they don't really care, is only a testament to the cultural indoctrination and perfection of propaganda techniques these oligarchs have utilized. They've come a long way since Goebbels and Trotsky. And those who do recognize the fascism are marginalized and generally powerless. This is a testament to the international surveillance society which Orwell's Big Brother could have only dreamed of (email is much more efficient than the memory hole).

Nevertheless, large masses of determined people around the globe oppose the G-20 oligarchs. The recognized inhumanity of the fascistic national leaders unites those of every nation who value peace and freedom. The common masses around the globe have a common enemy in the G-20 oligarchs. There is no need to search for some secret cabal – the villains of our age flaunt their power and celebrate their diabolical successes publicly. They have yet to face the growing resistance.

But have no doubt... with each drone missile that kills scores of civilians, with each member of the bourgeoisie who finds theirself bankrupt and foreclosed upon, with each new river that can no longer support aquatic life, with each child who dies of starvation, the resistance grows. And despite how deadly toxic much of the technology created by this system is, we suddenly (and perhaps fleetingly) have the mass communication tools at our disposal to quickly organize against the fascist G-20 oligarchs. We may not yet have the numbers to throw off our oppressors, but we must act now to draw attention to the issues and to inspire others to act. And we should not underestimate our ability to quickly rally the disenfranchised into action.

One of our strengths is abundance of options available in ways protest (boycotts, strikes, cyber-protests, et cetera). But taking to the streets in large public demonstrations is essential (however, you will not necessarily have to be in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania on September 24-25 to protest). Solidarity protests will take place during the G-20 Summit in cities around the world and it is important for everyone who opposes the fascist tyranny to organize locally in that effort. And we really need some people to organize tirelessly if we want to make this protest a success – it is essential that you spread the word about this protest, in simple populist terms, through all forms of media (from radio talk shows and editorials to blogs and twitter).

Ambitiously, but also perhaps most simply, the most effective form of protest can take place in the form of a general strike. Whether overtly or subtly, people can call in sick from work (with the swine flu) and withdraw their participation in the system at large (since the oligarchs are the ones who inevitably end up profiting the most from your labor). We can also withdraw our financial support from the institutions which the oligarchs profit from most directly (and towards which they show so much favor [in the form of bailouts]). These institutions are getting trillions of dollars in corporate welfare (at the expense of the common taxpayer) and deserve to face a complete withdrawal of public support.

The choice of whether or not to ignore this protest, and the issues surrounding it, is up to you. But have no doubt... we will all have to face the reality of these issues sooner or later. I urge you to use your creativity and to get involved with spreading the word about this protest. This is the revolution, a revolt at very least, and we are the revolutionaries – now is the time to act.

G-20 Protest Links (will be updated regularly)

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:27:00 +0000

Go to Pittsburgh, Young Man, and Defy Your Empire by Chris Hedges

While some might take issue with the lack of gender neutrality in the title of the article above (and many might take issue with the idea of Amerika being "their" empire), this is probably the type of populist message (by a fairly well-known author) that will inspire people to get involved at some level. Also... I've posted the first comment on the OpEdNews version of this article as well as on the Digg page (if you're at all interested in my take on this protest). The main thing is to spread the word and not let the corporate media define this protest. Linking to this post/blog will greatly assist, more than you may know, in helping people find this information.

And if Hedges isn't a big enough name for you, here's Howard Zinn talking about the counter-summit which will be taking place in coordination with the protest:

While I can not speak for the legitimacy of any group, the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) seems to be doing a lot of basic organizing work and has updates a bout protest specifics. POG, in turn, recommends checking out T he Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project "For information about the G20 mobilization, calls to action, housing, schedule of events, and other logisitical information." They have a bunch of fliers and other things on their site to support & promote the protest.

The G-20 Protest Blog For Global Revolution makes the case for an international general strike. As this protest is likely to see concurrent actions around the world... this does not seem out of the question (if people put in the time and effort to make it happen).

I'll try to keep this post updated with the best new links through the protest and you can also follow me on my Twitter page which will inevitably be featuring a lot of content about the G-20 and the protest in the coming days ahead. Stay tuned!

Update (9/04/09)

Protect Civil Liberties - Defend Right To Protest The G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh

Speakers decry G-20 protest rules

A Global Week of Solidarity with the Unemployed

Update (9/05/09)

Why and how I oppose the G-20

London activists demand action at protest against failed G20 policies

Green Party of Pennsylvania to protest G-20

Update (9/14/09)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Sunday Forum: There are plenty of reasons to protest the G-20

Update (9/16/09)

G-20 Protests: Not Just For Anarchists Anymore! -- Left, Right & Center! Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists, Tea-Baggers, Anarchists, Libertarians, & Greens ALL will be protesting the #g20!

Authorities warn of chaotic Oakland during G-20 summit

G-Infinity Radio Stream: Covering G20 From The People's Perspective (a project associated with Pittsburgh Indymedia and HIGHLY RECOMMENDED).

Update (9/17/09)

Why & How to Confront the G20 in Pittsburgh by CrimethInc.

Update (9/19/09)

Anarchist Armada Will Rendezvous In Pittsburgh from Anarchist News Dot Org

I thought this corporate media take on the protest deserved to be balanced by this Derrick Jensen Video: Star Wars - The Environmentalists Version

Update (9/23/09)
Greenpeace dropped a banner:

Twitter is all atwitter with the #g20 & my own page: NihiloZero @ Twitter

Update (9/23/09)
Incredible MUST SEE video commentary about the police handling of the protest surrounding the G-20 Summit and their treatment of journalists covering that event. These interviews with a number of journalists speak for themselves. The police were out of control and the violation of rights in Pittsburgh is being completely ignored by the mainstream corporate media. The following video expresses one of the most cogent and important statements on the subject. You may or may not find the statements in the following video very shocking, but you will probably find them to be just a wee bit disturbing.

Independant Journalists Speak Out About G-20 Suppression (VIDEO)

I don't know if you will find better commentary on the protest than from the interviews above, but AnarchistNews.org has had some lively discussion about the protest. Some of the absolute best coverage and commentary was feature at OpEdNews. In particular, this article:

G20 Pbgh; Police State Ghost-Town; Pics and Video of Tear-gassing

Dignity, Freedom, Idealism & Expectations

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:31:00 +0000

"We are far too slow to outrun it now but not too far gone to care"
--Balance by the Mountain Goats

I was recently chatting with a dear friend about various philosophical perspectives and, being mildly provoked and not completely devoid of ego, I felt the the need to defend my own perspective. People always seem to try and pigeonhole me as being an excessively idealistic hippie or an excessively cynical anarchist. Perhaps there is some truth in both assessments (I can only hope that Derrick Jensen has the same problem). In any case... this is my personal perspective/self-assessment in regard to what I write and stand for philosophically.

My positions have changed somewhat over the years but I try stand by most everything I've written on my blog or submitted to periodicals in recent years. Obviously, my most recent articles will reflect my current positions most accurately. In my writing I always strive for complete intellectual honesty and stand by almost all of the comments I've made in various discussion forums on various sites around the web -- with my blog and OpEdNews accounts standing out as particular examples.

"If you tell the truth, that way you don't have to remember anything."
--Mark Twain

What I try to present in my writing is, in short, this:
A) The problems (and the origin of the problems) facing humanity and the biosphere.
B) The ideal ways I feel these problems ought to be dealt with (on a personal and collective basis).
C) What I actually expect to happen in the world (generally and specifically) regardless of any particular strain of idealism.

Idealistic Contradictions

What I've come to realize about myself over the years is that while I do try to present necessarily radical solutions (necessary because the situation we find ourselves in is so dire), I do not have an incredible amount of faith in any of those solutions being applied for the purposes of bringing about a soft landing (whether they be proposed by myself or others).

The problem with idealism is that it is often presented in an intellectual vacuum and often starts to crumble when presented with the most basic opposition. Take, for example, Gandhi's position of absolute non-violence. On close examination of his writing you find at least one instance where he writes about the duty to physically "subdue" an axe-wielding maniac running amuck in a village. Or, you might find his letter to Hitler which, apparently, he actually believed might move the Nazi leader to abandon his imperialistic war efforts. George Orwell examines these things exquisitely in his famous essay about the "great soul."

"The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals."
--George Orwell, Reflection On Gandhi

In my own experience I am often reminded of an exchange with a man whom many would perhaps consider something of a modern day saint, Howard Zinn (who in any case promotes Gandhi's political methodology of non-violence). I asked Zinn (after a talk he had given about non-violent civil disobedience), "How many non-violent activists would it have taken, chained to the gates of Auschwitz, to shut it down?" As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was most disappointed with his glib response of "About a million."

The point I'm obviously getting at is the demonstrable long-term ineffectiveness -- and in some cases a subtle hypocrisy -- regarding such idealism. Certainly it is true that short term objectives may be achieved by non-violent civil disobedience (and that tactic certainly has a place when trying to make the world a better place) but I often see the true legacy of such movements as being remembered with inaccurate fondness. In Gandhi's case... his Indian nationalist movement ended up splitting the nation along religious lines and it is now in a nuclear standoff with Pakistan. He himself saw this as a horrible failure of what he was trying to achieve. One could try to debate whether or not the average Indian is better off due to his efforts when considering the socio-political and environmental conditions of modern India. It is true that the British empire was appropriately expelled from India, but that is lmore likely due to the mass rioting and increasing aggression towards the British imperialists (immediately proceeding their departure).

Similarly, in the U.S., Martin Luther King is often credited with advancing civil rights by means of non-violent civil disobedience. And while that's undoubtedly true, to an extent, the mass rioting and open revolt by large sections of the public may have also played a role in prompting the state to concede some rights to African Americans. (One might also point to the Stonewall riots as a starting point for the gay rights movement.)

As one last example... I will point to another fairly prominent & saintly activist in form of Julia "Butterfly" Hill. She is the person who sat in an old-growth sequoia (which she called "Luna") as an act of non-violent civil disobedience to protect a portion of the environment. Hollywood is currently making a movie about her experience but what often gets overlooked are the facts that A) the surrounding forest still got cut, B) her organization ended up simply buying the land, and C) the tree she "saved" eventually ended up having a chainsaw taken to it and only stands today because of giant metal braces which were attached to it.

The Nature of Idealism (& why people cling to it)

As a previously sustainable species, humanity did not evolve to deal with the myriad of problems which we not find ourselves confronted. It was quite arguably easier to be idealistic in simpler times because the potential threats faced (pre-)historically were not so potentially devastating. Certainly it is true that humans in the pre-civilized world faced threats and death but, even if you don't buy into Marshall Sahlins' ideas about the Original Affluent Society, it's obvious that the primitive world did not face the threats of nuclear war, human-induced climate change, and the general pressing issues of widespread environmental degradation. Most reputable anthropologists will agree that that primitive humanity did not face the the overwhelming threats of genocide and mass starvation that so many in the modern world confront regularly.

The point is... on an evolutionary timescale, humanity has very quickly moved away from a relatively ideal situation to this point today where billions are, in a very literal sense, living in a nightmarish dystopia. All you have to do is look at the great numbers of people who are malnourished, living in wholly dilapidated slums, or who are slaving away in sweatshops. And that's before mentioning the refugees and victims of modern conventional warfare (although they are likely to be included in those previous categories).

Obviously, things could be far more ideal. The real question is... how likely things are to get better before they get worse & how effectively can lasting and widespread positive change be brought about by intentional and direct actions? Pragmatically, as a utilitarian idealist, I'm talking about the greatest long-term good for the greatest number. To me, in short, that means a return of humanity to the primitive form of society which many anthropologists suggest existed in the form described by Sahlins.

We can debate the specifics of how ideal primitive societies were before civilization so altered the literal and (figurative) landscapes, but I am not seeing a more likely or favorable alternative (in terms of a historically demonstrable ideal).

Some would suggest the opposite extreme as an ideal -- these are those people who who promote the technological singularity up to, and including, the transfer of human consciousness into digital form. And while I do believe there is a slight possibility of this singularity happening... I generally doubt it's likely, I doubt we'd survive the process to bring it about, and I'm hardly convinced it's a great ideal -- unless the fictional lifestyle of the Borg seems ideal to you. As ill-defined as it is, I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if this future is possible or ideal -- but my intellect and my instincts cause me to doubt and recoil at the suggestion. At the very least we're probably talking about a new form of eugenics in regard to the advancement of this dubious singularity.

Arguably, the status quo of our actual society, techno-industrial mass society, already promotes many projects which aim to bring about the singularity. Prominent computer scientists have even started a prestigious "Singularity University" which is funded by Google. So this is a vision which people are truly working to bring about.

To me, this idea of progress seems horribly misguided, at best. This is the path humanity has been going down since the dawn of civilization and, to quote another great philosopher:

“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

So the problems we face are not due to a lack of technological progress but, rather, because we've had far too much of it. And thus we come to a choice of how to ideally proceed as a society. Do we stand by and behind the technocratic status quo or do we resist it? Do we remain neutral on the subject and does that amount to complicity or acceptance either way?

The Nature of Resistance

My political instinct and intellect compels me to promote, stand behind, and generally favor those ideas and actions which seem to work towards the greatest utilitarian good (in terms of health and freedom) for the greatest sustainable population. [As an aside I'd like to note that a smaller than sustainable population would probably be OK as well.] Assuming for a moment that such ideas and actions could be readily recognized, the individual and sub-groups would still be presented with the problem of picking winnable battles. Freedom-loving individuals and groups would, naturally, be in support of preserving and protecting the rights, freedoms and/or liberties of the individual.

This is what I'm getting at... Suppose you were in an isolated society of 100 people. A few in this society somehow achieve some sort of political sway over most of the rest who then begin to serve and militarily empower that minority of politicians. Now, if this power-grabbing minority attempts to persecute, enslave, torture, or kill another relatively isolated member of the society -- who seems to be purely or mostly innocent -- what risks are you willing to take on the individual's behalf and what reasonable expectations should the tormented individual have of you? What if the individual were your parent or lover or child? What if, somehow, you never met this other individual in your small society? Would, and how much, should these particulars matter -- and why?

You'll have to excuse me if this hackneyed hyperbole seems cliché, but these are the basic types of questions that too often seem to go unasked and unanswered in this modern, techno-industrial, mass society. And if you are reading this... then you are, to some degree, part of that society. Do you really know what you would take a stand for and how would you answer such basic questions as these just posed?! [I'd love to receive some comments in response to these questions.]

Dignity & Freedom

In general, it seems to me, that most people have a very weak, hollow, and limited definition of freedom. And, although I'd prefer to be having sex or eating chocolate... I think this is a fairly important topic -- in terms of self-understanding and community building -- so I will attempt to offer some outlines of a reasonable definition of freedom. [Perhaps this will lead to more sex & chocolate -- if not for me, then for others.]

One thought about freedom which has stuck with me for many years amounts to this... Freedom isn't something you have so much as it is something you allow. An individual who truly values freedom does so beyond what he or she is capable of and values the unhindered existence of all beings. A society that values freedom does so in regard to others and seeks not to infringe upon those activities which do not infringe upon the freedom of others.

A problem, historically, is that people have been excessively concerned about their own freedom (seeing what they could get away with, as it were) and have thus bastardized freedom by using their abilities to limit the rights of others. As if to say: "A free man, in a free society, ought to have the right to own slaves or impose their will at whim upon others."

The contradictory hypocrisy of such a sentiment (and actions upon it) is obvious. Those who would approach and engage the world in such a manner cannot truly be said to value freedom. It is difficult to imagine how a society of such selfish individuals could be sustainable -- especially if they continue to push the limits of what they are capable of doing merely for the sake of doing it.

Beyond simply human beings, someone who truly valued freedom would value the freedom of all beings. This is no small point and presents us with the physical danger to our health brought about by infringing upon the freedoms of others to exist without molestation in the natural world.

The earth's biosphere is a closed system which evolved into a balance of rich diversity over billions of years. As valuable and necessary species are driven to extinction en masse by homo sapien sapiens, we (as a species) not only violate their right to exist, but we also threaten our own ability to exist -- and this is the most fundamental right there is because without the right to exist any other freedom is moot.

The naturally existent wilderness is necessary for life to exist. Without life, freedom is moot. Therefore... destruction of the biosphere is the most fundamental attack upon freedom.

Resisting impositions upon freedom (however a group or individual can or must) is not contradictory because the initially imposing force is acting selfishly and against the freedom of other beings. [And I'm talking here about reckless and wanton destruction for superfluous gain -- i.e. clear cutting & strip-mining as opposed to acquiring food & the basics for survival.] In fact, to not resist wanton destruction of the natural world is contradictory to a being which values it's own life and freedom. If one feels that they and others have a right to exist... resisting all forms of unnecessary domination and destruction is a matter of freedom-loving dignity.

The fact that survival and resistance is more difficult at different times does not change the fact. The fact that honor, dignity, and survival itself are often mocked... does not make it less honorable or dignified to struggle for freedom and survival. And have no doubt... honor, dignity, survival and freedom are often overtly and subtly mocked in various ways. If you pay attention you will observe this mockery if you haven't already. But each individual must choose their own values -- regardless of the values of techno-industrial mass society.

Dignity, Freedom, and Expectations

Have no doubt that the struggles we are facing today are like others in human history (as we are dealing with the potential extinction of the human species along with many others). Negative feedback loops related to climate change, desertification, and the species which humanity has already wiped out may, inevitably, lead to humanity's demise. And if the human species is not wholly doomed... the aforementioned problems (and others still [i.e. nuclear war, peak oil, overfishing]) will likely cause the first decline in the human population since the dark ages. All the evidence is there if you are willing to face it.

"So," one might ask, "why do anything?" And, so, again, I return to the concept of dignity. It did not have to be this way and many people have fought against the culture of destruction and the genocidal processes of civilization. We have a right to exist on this planet (as do all naturally occurring species)! Whether or not there is much reason to hope, why make it more comfortable or easier for those who continue to profit from the traditions of destruction and degradation? Perhaps a touch of hope is required to avoid falling into the trap of sadistic retribution but, in any case, there are, simply put, many highly destructive groups and individuals that need to be permanently stopped before they destroy all life on this planet. They need to be confronted directly, often covertly/clandestinely, and very carefully if you wish to keep confronting them.

Only madmen would want to possess the weapons and tools of mass destruction that are now being wielded around the planet. So, indeed, the lunatics have taken over the proverbial asylum (and they have fairly widespread support from the ignorant, naive, and spiteful masses [who have been bred and devolved under the conditions of techno-industrial civilization]). These are the people who need to be confronted and stopped.

Conclusion

So that's how I see things and I'm saying so (again) before I can't. I have no illusions about freedom of speech or intrusive surveillance (I know what happened to Judi Bari). But I don't feel there are enough people expressing opinions such as this one and, so, I feel obliged to express it. I also know that I am not planning to riot in the streets or engage in any other illegal activities. I've done all those kinds of things which I am going to do and I'm starting to feel old beyond my years. And so now, anymore, I just try to express what I feel needs to be expressed.

Nihilo Zero

Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisationn (by Dmitry Orlov)

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:15:00 +0000

This post is in reference, and redirects, to an excellent article appearing at the Cluborlov blog which I highly recommend.

The talk from which the article was derived was presented at The New Emergency Conference in Dublin, on June 11, 2009.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/06/definancialisation-deglobalisation.html

Twitphilia & Twitanoia: Controlling Technology

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:43:00 +0000

An in-depth analysis of Twitter from a radical perspective.

I created a Twitter account during the planning phase of the protest surrounding the 2008 Republican Nation Convention. I had heard about it's text-to-phone cababilities and thought it might be useful to help organize the protesters and provide them with up-to-the-minute logistics while they were in the streets. This still seems like a potentially viable use of the system (capable of bringing flashmobs to a whole new level), but I had neither the time nor the technical understanding before the protest to make a serious push in this direction. I simply posted a prescient "tee hee" tweet and abandoned the endeavor.

Since then I have learned more about Twitter.com and I have revived my account in an effort to increase my web presence and spur discussion about radical politics. I continue to network with other radicals and enjoy sharing and spreading useful and interesting information.

Twitter from a revolutionary perspective...

A problem I see with this, particularly as a radical political activist, is that there still exists the very real possibility (in the conceivable future) of a very totalitarian and fascistic crackdown on revolutionary organizing and dissent. Twitter is not wholly responsible for this, of course, but it is a part of the larger technical communication apparatus which evermore seems to be recording all publicly expressed opinions and the networks of friends who may share those opinions. With this in mind, I wonder if radicals are exposing themselves too carelessly and I wonder if their use of computerized mass communication systems actually serves the greater good in the long run.

Many of the people who use Twitter probably don't care one wit about the greater good -- some may not care about anything, even themselves. But even amongst those people who do care about their fellow beings, and the global environment, etc., a question remains... Are they imbibed with a true understanding of the world's problems and do they have the focused skills to do anything about them?

General Technological Problems

I'll get back to a more Twitter-specific analyis in moment, but first I want to point out that several dire problems of civilization continue to get worse despite our technological know-how and our advanced communication systems.

In part I believe this because destructive forces/actions often trump sustainable activities like the europeans invading the new world. For a couple more examples to make my point... it only takes one person (or organization) dumping poisonous dioxins into the local water supply for that supply to be wholly and completely ruined -- even if everyone else in the community was very conscientious about living sustainably and not doing such things. Similarly, in the the extreme possibility, it would only take a small group of people launching nuclear weapons to bring about an unspeakable catastrophe -- even if the vast majority of people in the world had no desire for such an event to transpire. Even without great numbers, our technological capabilities have made it possible for a smaller group of committed individuals to greatly change things for the worse (my apologies to Margaret Mead). So all social justice movements and environmentalist groups would be rendered completely irrelevant if they were overpowered by the advanced weaponry of a much small group (or if that group created and released an imminently destructive force upon the environment).

A second problem, related to the previous, has to do with Thoreau's famous axiom that "there are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who striking at the root." As we sail today on our technological Ship of Fools this has never been more true. People form groups and write passionately about not kicking puppies, rising tuition costs, and stopping spousal abuse -- and all of these things may be very important -- but pre-eminent bodies of scientists and Nobel laureates have warned us that humanity all but faces extinction in the next 100 years. Hundreds of millions are starving RIGHT NOW, wars ravage the lands of millions more, and this hardly begins to touch on the hundreds of millions more who are literally toiling their lives away in sweatshop factories. These problems have become more prevalent during the advancement of techno-industrial civilization and yet some of us still cling to the discredited idea of progress.

You'll have to forgive me if I've gotten a little riled up, but here I sit in front of my computer listening to Crass songs with a visceral feeling of disgust and hypocrisy. But regarding my hypocrisy... that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't recognize the problems and at least I recognize my complicity while owning up to it.

More On Twitter (& computer networks in general)

As mentioned earlier, Twitter is the latest advancement of George Orwell's "memory hole" concept. For the majority of proles this will never matter but, evermore, our ideas and networks of friends are permanently recorded on massive hard drives in the bowels of massive skyscrapers. The problem with this isn't so much that you'll fail to get a job because of some risque old Myspace picture but, rather, that you might have expressed an idea that a future regime doesn't like -- or perhaps you seem to have associated too closely with someone who expressed those ideas. It's like the problem with widespread surveillance camera's... The problem isn't that they reduce crime or make us act like puritans -- the problem is that an extremely repressive regime may someday come to power and then have total control over the surveillance apparatus previously installed.

But let's assume somehow that we will never ever get a (more) repressive government... There are still other social ramifications associated with the use of Twitter and computer communications in general.

Earlier I mentioned the idea of a small group wielding immense technological power over the general masses and this concept still applies even if they aren't intending to use that power for our immediate and utter annihilation. The endless promotion of consumerism, for example, is a problem in itself. You or I may or may not be susceptible to various forms of mass marketing, but the masses obviously are. The increased prevalence of personal computers has been ushered in with even greater levels of consumption. Marketing has never been a more exact science, delivery of products has become streamlined, and product production has been facilitated by internet communication systems. In the U.S., and abroad, consumerism has reached new heights and will likely survive all but the worst of economic collapses -- and at that point this article will seem hackneyed and passe. If humanity as a whole continues to consume as much as we can, as fast as we can... the environmental consequence are sure to be devastating. The prudent conservation of a few will matter very little. Moderate conservation will matter even less if we are still using computer networks that inevitably work to promote consumerism to our fellows.

Defensive Arguments of Technological Neutrality

One will argue that articles such as this one prove the potential good computer networks like Twitter can do. However... not only are we still faced with the widespread typical uses of such a system, there is still the possibility that this article is too tame (along with any similar articles that actually get read). This article might be too mild and fall ideologically short of the necessary critical assessment of our circumstances. Your less than humble author is, after all, still immersed in this system and is something of a product himself in that regard. Humans are the most domesticated animal and I worry that all those cartoons in my youth may have made me, and consequently this analysis, too tame.

This brings me to my next point... what is the broad psychosocial effect of this long immersion in these technological systems of media and communication? We can't just assume that the effects of the last 50 years of media immersion will stop being consequential simply because we now sit in front of monitors instead of televisions. For example... the standards of beauty created by the television studios won't simply cease to be our standard of beauty today. And that's a very physiological effect on our innate sexuality. More to the point... the ideological indoctrination will not cease to have an effect now that hordes of Joe Bloggers give us the same ideological perspective that has always been promoted by the corporate state in the schools, history books, and television studious. Sure, you can find ideological niches of liberation and social critique in some online circles but the shallow, the mundane, and the reactionary are still the norm -- even on Twitter.

The Technological Bias on Twitter and Beyond

One of the greatest ideological biases of out time regards the blind aforementioned faith in technological progress. Since the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and since the widespread acceptance of personal computers into the majority of American homes, technological criticism has become evermore lost in a virtual sea of advertisements for the latest gadget or pill.

One can hardly find a truly qualitative critique of technological advancement unless they look very thoroughly and with formal philosophical studies in their background to guide their assessments (of course why would anyone want to look for such a thing anyway?). Most of the critiques conclude that technology is a neutral tool and if we try a little harder to be moral then everything will be fine with it. Obviously I disagree and find that assessment to be overly simplistic.

On twitter such discussions are bound to be limited because most of the users have accepted the use of computers in our daily lives and have completely brought into the pro-tech paradigm. But one of my most telling online experiences regarding the technology debate took place around the wikipedia article about technology. There were two pictures on the page which I attempted to change in an effort to challenge the neutrality claims of the other editors. One was of an astronaut floating serenely in space (as the headline image) and the other was a picture of an idyllic old-fashion windmill with a nuclear power plant in the background. Respectively I tried to replace these with a photo of a mushroom cloud and a picture of the melted down husk of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. I feel like I made a strong case for these edits since e=mc2 and it's weaponized results were more significant than high altitude orbiting (and even contributed to space travel) while the Chernobyl image balanced the other benign, neutral, and positive images on the page. Not surprisingly, these edits didn't stick, but I do think they illustrated the lack of neutrality and the positive spin put on technology.

A Closing Look at Twitter

(If you've read this far, congratulations -- I'm surprised your technologically stunted attention span held out for this long. I'd be even more surprised if you retained any recollection of the points I was trying to make. It's somewhat improbable that you found this article at all.)

Twitter strikes me as little more than a large recorded chatroom. How anyone could possibly read all the links posted from even 100 average users is beyond me (perhaps they're already cyborgs and don't know it). I suppose one wouldn't have to read all the links but then it just seems like one could search more directly for the information they're interested in without having to wait for some to tweet about it. Twitter might serve some limited good in specific situations but, overall, it just seems to be the newest medium for dishing out pop culture drivel (and I don't care what Aston Kutcher is doing today or what CNN says is news). The only thing that would change my mind about Twitter is if this article about it brought 10,000 unique visitors to my blog -- and I dare you tweeters to make that happen! I'd still probably end up being a little skeptical of the whole thing.

Tweet Away,

Nihilo Zero

You Don't Have to be a Chomsky to Know Something is Wrong...

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:00:00 +0000

The following text was prepared as a leaflet and was distributed at a talk given by Noam Chomsky in Madison, WI., April 7th, 2009 about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A review of the talk is given in the comments.

The squalor and apartheid in Gaza is truly horrible but, to mix a metaphor, focusing too much on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is like hacking at the branches on the ship of fools. The involvement of the U.S. government is clear with this problem (as it is with so many others -- wars, famine, sweatshop slavery, and environmental disasters all over the world). Nuclear weapons continue to be produced, proliferated and perfected with broad taxpayer support. Environmental scientists are the equivalent of modern day Cassandras to whom the masses give only token credence while humanity is on the brink of an unprecedented historical disaster which will pale the black death. On the heavily surveilled State Street, in Madison, WI., we have sweatshop storefronts and the worst forms of consumerism. These are the ways in which the masses are made complicit and these are the things which we must actively resist and overtly oppose. We need something beyond dispassionate lectures, hollow petitions, and milquetoast reforms. We need a comprehensive and radical dismantling of this system of war, famine, slavery and environmental devastation. We need subtle and pointed organization, locally, in various forms, of street-level revolt.

A Radical Confession of Hope Regarding Obama

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:46:00 +0000

UPDATE 5/10/09: I'm now thoroughly embarrassed by this article but I will keep it listed and present it as lesson in how even the most cynical, jaded, radical and revolutionary can be somewhat bamboozled by the slick cult of personality... I must say that the escalation of war in Afghanistan is thoroughly disgusting and Obama's anti-environmentalist policies are typical of politicians in this pro-industrial society.

UPDATE 3/9/09: I'm not embarrassed enough by this article yet to remove it, but I must say that the worst of my fears (and few of my hopes) have come to pass. Obama seems to be picking right up where Bush left off. Eventually I'll get around to posting more analysis but, until then, people might like to check out one of my older blogs which I still mostly stand behind. I think the economic analysis presented in the article before this one was was pretty spot on.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama (or anyone else), and I still wouldn't on anarchistic principle, but I must admit... President-Elect Obama is an inspiring figure who has the potential to change the world for the better. Those who are familiar with my political philosophy might equate this confessional belief with Kropotkin supporting the first World War, but I don't want anyone to confuse guarded optimism with wholesale support for everything that Obama will engage in during his first term.

The fact of the matter is, as with most anyone else, I have major disagreements with what Obama claims to want and how he would intend to reach his goals. But, at the same time... Obama is in the ultimate position to do a world of good. If he truly does harbor ideals of freedom and environmental sustainability there is the outside chance that he has simply been playing the game to get where he is now. If humanity can hope, let's hope that Obama is a freedom-loving idealist who has been lying low through dirty politics, biding his time, only to now rise for the occasion and institute fundamental changes to the system. If a small group of committed individuals can change the world, why not one man?

Barack Obama is obviously very intelligent. And, fortunately, he doesn't have the palpable presence of an evil super-genius (like George H.W. Bush had). On the contrary, when I see him speak of general peace in the world (and the future for his daughters) I believe he actually might be sincere (if not slightly misguided by the bureaucratic politics which he has been steeped in). What if the political lies he's told have only been to get elected and he really is a humanitarian in his heart of hearts? It's easy to be cynical, and I could certainly be reading him wrong, but what if? What if?

Now don't get me wrong, I expect to be as critical of his presidency as anyone -- and I have serious condemnations for many things he's already said and done. But it's all about the soft landing and the possibility that someone on top of the political hog pile might actually have the desire, and now the ability, to sort things out and get the world on a better track. I'm guardedly optimistic, and here's a list of reasons why (along with some balancing criticism)...

Obama has overtly stated his desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Is anyone opposed to that (besides the military contractors)? Is anyone in a better position now to make that happen? Isn't it better to have the person in charge of the largest and most dangerous military being against nuclear weapons and proliferation? I mean, let's be real... all the grassroots organizations in the world couldn't stop a launch if they never actually had control of the weapons themselves. I have guarded faith that President Obama will not launch a nuclear strike and is sincere in his stated opposition to nuclear weapons. This is no minor point and high-level opposition needed to happen if we want to make life on earth more secure. Would you prefer the contrary? Think about it... the Commander in Chief (although I'd never bow) is explicitly opposed to nuclear weapons!

The President-elect is aware of the potential devastation from global warming -- and has even proposed a carbon tax on emissions! Again, this is no minor point. While it would be nice if people would simply stop seeing themselves as (and behaving as) consumers, such a tax could actually curb emissions. The highest legislator in the land is intent on curbing greenhouse gas emissions! As with nuclear weapons proliferation, the tireless work of activists on this issue is not to be overlooked or trivialized, but now someone is in a position of power to quickly and dramatically make pro-environment policy. Sure it would be nice if everyone stopped driving and using coal-powered lightbulbs, but that is not a practical request or a realistic hope... a carbon tax is.

Obama came out early in opposition to the Iraq war. He has since backed down on his strongest points of opposition but it is not unreasonable to think that he has the desire, and now the ability, to end that unjust conflict. He has also spoken eloquently about ending the conflict in Israel/Palestine. These are big issues, and his intentions remain unproven, but why not harbor some guarded optimism in regard to issues that must eventually be dealt with peacefully? His supporters need to keep him honest (which they don't tend to do), but hopefully he has it within himself to remain, or become, true to his word.

While he has not spoken as eloquently as Ralph Nader, and while he has wavered for political convenience, Obama has spoken out against NAFTA and the WTO. These are trade agreements which the U.S. can withdraw from and which currently cause a race to the bottom in terms of environmental standards and worker's rights. What if Obama truly is opposed to these types of organizations? What if? We shall see.

Obama has seriously wavered on energy policy and (like so many other progressives) he does not seem to appreciate the connection between energy creation and general consumption (with it's extremely negative environmental consequences). That said, his promotion of a green "New Deal" does not seem to be the worst project ever promoted. If he recognizes the dangers posed by nuclear power (which he apparently might) and if he recognizes the futility of bio-fuels (which he apparently hasn't yet), we might get on a better track environmentally. If nothing else, such a New Deal might inspire people generally to recognize and respond to the problems of energy production and consumption.

According to the Sierra Club, Obama has a "strong record of support for clean air, wetlands protection, and clean energy." According to The League of Conservation Voters, Obama's lifetime environmental voting percentage (given by the in 2007) is 86%. His rumored pick of RFK Jr. to head the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) would be outstanding and indicative of real awareness about environmental concerns. Short of someone like Derrick Jensen, I couldn't imagine anyone better suited for the position than Kennedy.

On race relations... enough can't be said about the effect of Obama's election. Even if indirectly, and not necessarily a main focus on his part, Obama has allowed Americans (a notoriously racist people) to prove that they are not all, and not primarily, driven by racial mistrust. His election is a watershed moment. Much still needs to be done to counter the lasting effects of racist policies in all American institutions (notably the prison-industrial complex and the medical system), but how can't one have faith that Obama will work to balance and correct these inequities? Obama would have to overtly work against people of color to undo the positive effects of his election on race relations. I could easily be mistaken, but I really think Obama might have a decent heart and a honorable soul.

So the aforementioned points are areas in which I think that Obama might actually make a positive change in the world. If you have any knowledge of my notorious cynicism you might be stunned by this hope. Allow me then to bring my readers, and myself, back from the castles in the sky (in order to present the very real potential negatives and problems arising from Obama's election).

First of all... Obama is a politician. Don't forget that or make light of it. He has wavered on key issues and has been on the side of injustice many times. The fact that our system is organized in such a way that it needs salvation from one incredibly powerful individual is indicative of just how bad things have become and a reminder that the next guy could dramatically undo any superficial changes President Obama puts into place. We need serious change and a fundamental reorganization to prevent concentrated power from remaining too dangerous to life on earth. Don't forget that we are in a world of ecological and humanitarian crisis. A friendly face and eloquent speeches won't be enough. Temporary and superfical changes in the world order won't be enough. A politician with a wavering record won't be enough.

Support of the Patriot Act will not be tolerated by freedom-loving people. Obama's support of FISA reminds us that we are dealing with a compromising bureaucrat. His overt promotion of offshore drilling during the debates is anethema to environmentalists. His wavering timetable on withdrawal from Iraq smacks of the most cynical political convenience. His saber-rattling against Afghanistan and Iran is frightening in it's potential and troubling in it's typicality.

Even if the fears of the previous paragraph are overblown (which I tend to doubt), problems can actually arise because he ends up being an ideal progressive President with truly humanitarian intentions. This is because the masses could be fickle, ignorant, and reactionary. As an illustration of my point... let's say Obama was an ideal leader with great ideas. If certain problems are out of control (like the consumer economy or peak oil) there may be nothing he can do about them. But the people may not have the wherewithal to make note of the fact that he was not the cause of the problems but may instead blame him and his ideas because he was the ideological figurehead in charge when things truly got bad. Thus a backlash can occur against good policy because the masses may not realize that those policies were the only chance they had. The overarching problem of peak oil could thus be blamed, incorrectly, on things like a carbon tax or the protection of ANWR. If the economy finally crumbles people may not have the intellectual ability or political understanding to realize how we got there but merely may notice that progressive taxation and strict environmental policies were in place when it all went to hell. This isn't necessarily to say that good policies shouldn't ever be instituted but, rather, that there may be a hard road ahead (despite good policies) when the backlash occurs (against those good policies). A cynic might even suggest that this is why the Republicans punted during this election cycle with their laughable ticket of McCain/Palin -- they know the system is poised for a big fall and they don't want to be the face of authority when it does.

On the subject of race... while I think Obama's election is a great thing in terms of race relations, many people may not realize the frightening level of racism that still exists in our society. While people of all races are now learning that they really can trust and support each other, there is likely to be a subtle (if not overtly organized) backlash from the racists. As sad and as sick as it may be, Obama's election will probably cause the ranks of racist organizations (like the KKK) to grow -- and his election is likely to inspire those who support such organizations to become more militant than they've been in years. The idea that a black man is the leader of the USA will simply not be tolerated by many backwards Americans. This could cause a serious tear in the social fabric as white nationalists have a twisted issue to rally around. While the government authorities have become focused in the past decade on militant environmentalists (who destroy property -- logging equipment & SUV's), the militant racists (who destroy people -- men, women, and children) have been ignored to an equal extent. Maybe now, at the very least, some Earth First! agents will be reassigned to monitor the American Neo-Nazi movements and the KKK. Of course that won't solve the problems posed by militant racists and, unfortunately, I'm not sure what will. Worse still... this will probably be used as a justification for the general expansion of the intrusive surveillance apparatus in the USA.

Speaking of race and the authorities... I am hopeful that Obama will take steps to dismantle the overtly racist prison-industrial complex. One African-American might be the Commander in Chief but as long as 1/3 of all African-American men continue to be cycled through the police state and prison systems... racism will still be a prominent feature of American society. The key to dismantling the prison-industrial complex is, quite simply, the decriminalization of drugs (this will also bankrupt the poppy growing, heroin exporting, Taliban). There is already widespread support for the decriminalization of marijuana (and hemp is a crop which could be grown to great economic advantage). My advice would be to rally around this issue and give Obama the political ability to make general decriminalization a reality. The Drug War is a war on American citizens -- and it needs to end. Diverting funds from the prison-industrial complex and decreasing related police aggression in poor communities (particularly minority neighborhoods) could have positive impacts on both the economy and general social harmony.

Special mention needs to be made about the Taliban as justification for increased military activity on the part of the U.S. in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Queada are certainly a repressive menace to the people of that region (and around the world). However, if removing them from power militarily will increase the level of civilian suffering and produces more anger against the west, wouldn't that defeat the purpose? This is a delicate situation and a subject which will continue to require much scrutiny when Obama moves into the Oval Office. As stated before, the Taliban could be rendered far less influential if their drug trade was disrupted and bankrupted by wholesale decriminalization of drugs in the west. It sounds extreme in the context of puritanical right-wing prohibitons and anti-drug propaganda, but any domestic problems caused by decriminalization would be offset by the benefits to national (and world) security.

Finally... my greatest fear is that the progressives and radicals will be placated and pacified because they have tied themselves politically and psychologically to Obama and his cult of personality. It is very important that we do not allow this to happen to ourselves or the larger progressive/radical community. If Obama institutes harmful environmental policies he needs to be called on it. If he expands the police state, he needs to be held accountable. If he fails to deliver on his promises of military withdrawal and/or if he seriously escalates the conflict elsewhere in the region... he needs to be recognized as a warmonger. Serious issues are not going to disappear just because Obama has been elected and we need to make sure that we continue to struggle for justice and environmental sustainability -- whether Obama proves to be working for the same things or not. Optimism and hope concerning Obama is understandable, but let's try not to let it blind us.

Crash & Collapse: This is more than a depression.

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:23:00 +0000

[UPDATE: June 1st, 2001 -- I have removed the 2 opening paragraphs (which listed my weak and boastful credentials) and have decided to let the article speak for itself -- other than that it is unchanged. This article is a few months old now but it is still relevant as the economic crisis has worsened. This is a partial account of how I see the crisis unfolding as well as where I see humanity going as a whole. And it may contain some information that you have overlooked or forgotten as the crash was gearing up. The original article with the weak opening remains unchanged at OpEdNews if you'd like to read the 2 paragraphs which I've now deleted here. Anyway, here remains the rest of the otherwise unchanged article...]

Money: derived from the Latin "moneta" which originally meant "warning" (as Juno Moneta was the goddess of warning). "When coinage was devised by the Romans, they set their mint in her temple and the goddess became the guardian of finances."

CRASH

The stock market has lost nearly a third of it's value since it's peak (14093). In the past week the DJIA has had it two worst daily downswings ever. Since Oct.1st, the market has dropped 1383 points (and counting as of 10/07/08) from 10831 to 9447. While the overall crash from the peak has happened more slowly than in 1929, the loss of value has been of a greater percentage than what took place in the initial days of that historic collapse. And, while certain computer automation techniques have been introduced to prevent more sudden single-day crashes, like the one in 1987, the markets are still plummeting and the results are the same.

Just as in 1929, the common citizen had been encouraged to invest more regularly in the stock market, right before it's peak, and now the rug has been pulled out from beneath them. Touted as the soundest, surest, most profitable investment... many average citizens tied their hopes and their retirement funds to the stock market. As before, many have already lost their life savings.

The bailout farce deserves more attention than I want to give it but, suffice it to say, at best, it's too little and too late. They could, basically, print more money and technically save these failed businesses. But to the extent that they don't overwork their printing presses (digital or conventional) or, out of thin air, issue some other form of promissory notes (drawn towards the national debt), domestic spending of all sorts will be cut -- and these various programs (whether they be for schools, agriculture, or jet fighters) would have spent that money and fueled the economy as well. Without the funding, these various institutions will have to make cutbacks. They won't be able to buy as much (hurting the GDP) or pay their employees as much (whose collective spending also fuels the economy).

So, however this $850Billion bailout is actually conjured up (through taxation, simple printing, or borrowing back from various investors), the economy (even as it's commonly considered) is going to suffer great hardship. Somewhere along the line, either A) People will have less money to spend & invest in other projects, or B) The value of the dollar will be greatly diminished because they've printed and distributed so much cash. When the latter happens, people realize the worst arbitrary quality of money (and would thus prefer to hold on to actual items with inherent worth while moving away from monetary exchange). When the former happens, the masses don't have enough money to buy the typically massive amounts of certain products like computers, cars, designer clothing, etc. (so those products won't require a workforce to produce them and the subsequently laid off workforce won't then be able to buy still other products -- creating a deflationary spiral). In either case, people will lose confidence in the dollar because it is either worthless or because it's too hard to get a hold of. No one wants it or no one has enough of it to get what they need. However the government goes about financing this bailout, the general public will lose faith in the state.

COLLAPSE

German woman fueling furnace (1923)

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."
Old Cree saying

The problem is that we are not actually living in a post-scarcity world. Americans have lived temporarily in a society where an abundance of their material desires could be met, but the idea of post-scarcity was an illusory fiction. The earth is still round and finite. The planet cannot forever maintain this incredibly large number of people who desire a consumeristic American lifestyle.

Specifically, our global agricultural system depends most heavily on petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides. As petroleum is a finite (non-renewable) resource we will not be able to maintain production of those petro-chemicals which the agricultural system and billions of people depend upon. And wishful thinking about a ready substitute will not make one magically appear.

Petroleum has been, without a doubt, the primary fuel of industrial civilization -- and it's been 1/2 depleted. It's as simple as that. The underground lakes of oil have been half sucked dry and literally burnt up. And the dependance on petroleum has increased so dramatically with each passing decade that the remaining oil will be extracted at a much quicker rate. Each passing decade of extraction far outpaces the previous decade (as international demand skyrockets). But the geological forces which create petroleum oil take millions of years to produce more. Scarcity is an obvious and immediate factor.

The global ruling class knows this all to well. It's the fundamental reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why the sabers are now being rattled in the direction of Iran. It's a fact not to be overlooked or forgotten. Even if the wars there take decades, and require brutal escalation, in the end the U.S. is positioning itself to be atop the last and largest remaining oil fields. The U.S. intends to have the last source of petroleum to maintain it's dominant military machine. This is arguably why they are not immediately concerned with increasing petroleum extraction in Iraq, and why, cynically, they are not overly-concerned with the current health of their diminished industrial economy.

A temporary reduction in industrial output will slow the immediate demand for oil -- and that's oil they'll have to use later in the game for their military machines. If common civilians around the globe can't afford oil now... that's just oil that will remain and be used to suppress them later. We are talking about literal, political, and military power. The ruling elites are the ones who are truly looking at the long-term -- with the intention of retaining and maintaining their status. They understand what's coming and this is why, for example, President George Bush recently purchased 100,000 acres in Paraguay on top of the Guarani Aquifer, one of the largest underground freshwater reserves.

As resources are drained, the water is polluted, and the overall environment is laid to waste (all while the population continues to boom)... the ruling class is literally and figuratively positioning themselves to ride out the coming storm.

WORSE THAN A DEPRESSION

People like to say that history repeats itself (because similar events do take place throughout history), but we are living in unprecedented historical times. We have an historically unprecedented number of people using, and depending upon, more BTUs that ever before. Simultaneously, the environmental conditions are in a worse state than ever before in human existence (dead zones in the ocean, polluted freshwater, deforestation of an epic scale, rapid desertification, and the mass extinction of untold species because of human activity). These are very serious issues not to dismissed, overlooked, or forgotten. We also have more governments around the world armed with historically unparalleled weaponry.

But before we look at the obvious consequences of those facts just mentioned, let's look at the more immediate consequences of the dire economic straits which Americans (and citizens of other industrialized nations) now find themselves in.

The stock market collapse has already wiped out the life savings and retirement funds of many Americans. Home foreclosures are at an unprecedented rate. Unemployment and underemployment rates are incredibly high. Disposable income is down as food and fuel costs have skyrocketed. Crime rates in the USA, "land of the free," are only kept in check by the massive prison-industrial complex which jails more people in total numbers (and per-capita) than any other nation. Corporate raiders, stealing hundreds of billions of dollars, are given a walk. The banking system is in collapse and runs on the banks are getting louder and more frequent.

When they piece it together, and look at it as a whole, anyone can see that this does not bode well for the immediate future (never mind the long term for a moment). Violent crime in the U.S. is about to skyrocket. We are going to see Americans fight tooth and nail as they attempt a futile defense of their consumeristic lifestyles -- and that's even before food and fuel costs really catch up with them. Any ideal you may have of capitalism is going to crumble because it fundamentally depends on parties X & Y trusting each other enough and being able to prevent violent renegotiations of any and every deal. It's not going to be... "Oh well, despite the fact that I worked hard and saved, I'll just starve and live a life of dilapidated poverty." Some will accept that, but enough will not -- thus make things more than interesting (in the worst sense of the word).

The sad fact is that there are very many small-minded and corrupt people who will use this current scenario to promote the worst political agendas. Race-baiting will become more frequent. Anti-immigrant movements will grow. Socially authoritarian idealogues will blame the situation on individual vice and a lack of fundamentalist religion. The police state will expand as the authorities struggle to maintain their control. Any idealogical threats to the elite's status will be crushed as quickly as any actual physical threats. A new push towards totalitarian fascism will make the last ten years look like a stroll through Freedomtown.

And that's before, above & beyond, any widespread international conflicts created by the governmental leaders (which are specifically designed to distract and/or horde more in their own best interests). Again, what the do you think the war in Iraq is really about, Iraqi liberation? Securing America from al Queda? Yeah, right.

I have the belief that Homo sapien sapiens flourished by means of their aggressive (de)evolution and that they wiped out other more passive and intelligent Homo genus relatives (like Homo sapiens idaltu [roughly translated as "elder wise human"] and Homo neanderthalensis). And that trend will continue now as the more peaceful (& more intelligent) humans are quickly and easily disposed of. The cooperative peaceniks amongst us (by definition) won't put up much of a fight -- and that will leave more hostile warmongers to comprise the bulk of humanity.

And while essential resources become more scarce, the militaries of the world are armed with the most devastating weapons ever created. They can scorch and irradiate the entire face of the Earth. Based on their track record, why would one doubt that they might? I mean, let's assume President Truman was relatively mild... there are far more ruthless leaders now and more of them are in possession of even deadlier weapons. Your hopes that there will never be another (more limited) nuclear strike will not change the tendencies of evil and irrational leaders who are more empowered than ever.

We are in serious trouble. If we do not adequately recognize the real threats to humanity (and the biosphere as a whole) we will not be able to adequately come up with a life-affirming response. Sadly, we may not be able to anyway. Culturally we have been conditioned to expect a happy ending... but this isn't a bedtime story or a Hollywood movie. The good guys don't always win and the planet may not be saved in the final scene.

A brief socio-economic point...

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:18:00 +0000

Looters in New Orleans, after hurricane Katrina, were shot on sight. Looters on Wall Street were given a bailout.

Is that not the ultimate of double standards and irony? I mean come on, who needed the bailout more and who was really looting?

Anyway... here is a link to a video of a U.S. Congressman, speaking in congress, stating that members of congress were threatened with martial law if they didn't immediately pass the $850billion bailout plan.

Dystopia Now! How bad does it have to get?

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:40:00 +0000

Humanity is in crisis, bodily and spiritually. Humans are the direct cause of the current mass extinction. The biosphere is being laid to waste, in new ways all the time, at a quicker rate each passing day. The evidence, from prestigious bodies of scientists, is readily available via our toxic computers and the world wide web. We who are fortunate enough to get these facts ignore the information, dismiss it, or don't act upon it nearly to the degree which we ought. Human caused mass extinction will eventually catch up with our own species.

Despite pockets of affluence, more people around the world are starving today than at any point in human history OR pre-history (both in total numbers and per-capita). Agricultural practices have allowed for a global population boom but they also deplete the capabilities of the soil with each harvest. Deforestation and petro-chemicals only temporarily alleviate the problem by creating more farmland and fertilizers. But these tactics are not a long-term solution by any means and, in fact, make the long term consequences much worse. Unfortunately, these are the most common solutions implemented.

The potential for devastation caused by war has not lessened since the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. More devastating technologies have since been developed and more groups have an easier time gaining access to them. Intelligence agencies designed to prevent it are often complicit in proliferating the technology. Archaic religious wars have reached the age of nuclear weapons and hostilities are just as great as ever. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler or an evil Ayatollah/Pope gets access to this technological power.

I would make the case connecting the progress of industrialized education with the progress of technological weaponry, but the institution is sacrosanct and scientific progress is presented as both unstoppable and desirable. Consequently, whether that's true or not doesn't matter... too few question or resist it. Most luddites are presented as historically irrelevant, currently misguided, or revered only in the realm of science fiction. Let me just say that primitive children living in the wilderness know as much about the world as children repeating their abc's and multiplication tables.

The prison-industrial complex is a fast-growing business. Already though, in America, more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per-capita) than in any other nation. Land of the free indeed.

To the extent that other oppressive regimes exist around the world, they work with each and/or the United States of America. The Peoples Republic of China, for example, is the number one trading partner of the U.S. and both benefit by keeping large portions of their population repressed. Oligarchic powers around the world all benefit from (and desire to keep) large segments of the global population repressed and in poverty. They are able to pit these oppressed people against each other by old religious and nationalistic methods as well as modern media propaganda -- and do you think that the U.S. leaders would really want the Chinese to rise up in liberation to throw off their oppressors? No more than the Chinese oligarchs would want domestic upheaval in the USA.

This all amounts to modern humanity, and all life on earth, being in an unprecedented crisis. Our ethics and morality have only kept up with our technological capabilities insomuch as the more that we could do, we did. And make no mistake, supposedly benign mathematics can have surprising implications towards less noble pursuits -- Einstein should have taught us that (if Alfred Nobel didn't). And who are the esteemed intellectuals of science? Why they are rocket scientists, of course. But the point is that the fruits of benign sciences can plant the seeds of further devastation. This is a point that should not be as readily dismissed as it often is.

What we need is a fundamental break from the technological oligarchy, but this is no small chore. Those in power will not accept this because they don't have to face the common realities of the masses and, even if they knew of our crisis, they may be content to let the world die with them. How unprecedented is it that so many care so little about their children and their subsequent descendants? How much more true must this be for a high-tech war-profiteering arms dealer? We are talking about people who don't really care even about their immediate families -- much less you or any of the other billions of people on this planet!

Momentarily, I will get on to a milder response to the present situation but, what we really need is a revolt against the whole techno-industrial oligarchy. Even if they can't be stopped, even if they wholly intend to take the world with them, basic human dignity demands that we resist and rise up against their efforts. It may be wholly futile, but at what point is your entire lineage essentially dead anyway? In the name of non-violence, some people wouldn't punch someone in the nose to prevent them from launching a nuclear holocaust -- I am not one of those persons. As the most domesticated animal, humans have been bred into passivity or blind servitude, but I suggest you break those mental chains and act for the greater good of not only yourself, but also future generations.

In less dramatic terms, we must push the precautionary principle as far and as hard as it will go! The current wikipedia definition will suffice:

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.

There are many definitions of the precautionary principle. Precaution is caution in advance, or ‘caution practised in the context of uncertainty’. All definitions have two key elements.

1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
2. the establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be high, for action to prevent or minimise such harm even when the absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should it occur. The need for control measures increases with both the level of possible harm and the degree of uncertainty

Full implementation of the Precautionary Principle is just a start of the epic project which humanity must commence with. Not only must we work to prevent the implementation of new potentially devastating technologies, but we must stymie the usage of several ubiquitous technologies which already cause great amounts of destruction. Even simple projects protecting local green spaces are useful endeavors. Horticultural gardening to prevent the need for so much industrial agriculture (and processing) is a simple step which not only works towards these ends, but it is also a pleasant activity which can considerably help preserve financial resources. The list goes on, but moving away from the industrial cycle of consumption is key.

Again, however, we are faced with the problem of power dynamics. As a twist of Margaret Meade's famous statement about activism... I like to point out, "It only takes small group of committed individuals to do a great amount of environmental and social harm." Those who have demonstrated their commitment to environmental destruction and promote policies of war must be stopped. The key is consciousness of our own complicity within the destructive systems and an honest effort to move away from such practices -- without that we are less than human. But you are not on the same scale of a Hitler if you fight back against a rapist and using a tissue is not the same as enthusiastically encouraging the destruction of the rain forests. It is foolish not to consider intent or scale when thinking about such matters. Violence in self-defense (or in defense of others, or in defense of the environment) is not the same as aggressive violence for the purposes of greed and destruction. Do not let people convince you that saying a hurtful word is the same as the President, on national television, encouraging war. Yes, we are all sinners and are flawed, but some of us are just human while others are absolutely diabolic.

Preemptively, in terms of my own personal computer use, I like to say, for example, "The best uses for the tools of destruction are against the other tools of destruction." I hope that makes sense to some people.

Finally, I'd like to take a moment and talk about suppression and repression of radical environmentalists. In the past it was the communists/socialists who were seen as the preeminent threat to big business interests, but now it is the radical environmentalists (who often have a more anarchistic stance). The "red scare" has become the "green scare" and the tactics used previously are being used again. Before 9/11 it was the Earth Liberation Front that was considered by the U.S. government as the #1 domestic terrorist threat. This despite the fact that no one was ever physically harmed in an action claimed by that group. This despite the fact that the KKK still exists and neo-nazi's still flourish. This despite the fact that the police forces in this nation still kill innocent people every day.

So take this as a warning... if you want to struggle against the state's interests, even if you organize in the most peaceful ways, the state will take notice. Resistance is needed, but you must fully consider the consequences of even your most trivial participation in such activities.

With any luck, someday the value system of techno-industrialization civilization will be completely turned on its head. We will have peace and not war. Freedom and not constant surveillance by our so-called leaders. Conservation and sustainability rather than unhindered environmental degradation. But we must work and struggle for these things if we truly want change. It won't come from above, not from god or a politician. We must take it upon ourselves to bring about this the reality or it's not going to manifest. It is our responsibility. It is our duty as human beings.

An Open Challenge to Chomsky, Zerzan & Zinn

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:05:00 +0000

Like many others around the world, I owe a great deal of my political awareness and social consciousness to Noam Chomsky, John Zerzan and Howard Zinn.

From reading Chomsky I was made aware of the ongoing effects of bureaucratic policies sanctioning war and death squads. Zerzan made clear the depths of alienation from sustainable pathways and the need for truly radical change. Zinn not only impressed upon me the honest brutality of American history, but his his promotion of Gandhian non-violence (which I don't wholly agree with) is so much more promising than the useless finger-wagging and petition-passing undertaken by so many in the name of activism.

I have personally spoken with Zerzan and Zinn and have exchanged written correspondence with Zerzan and Chomsky in the form of letters and email. And, as much as I respect and admire these three, I have tried to challenge them rather than simply flatter and defer. Often it may have come across as youthful arrogance or hubris, but great people need intellectual challenges from those who esteem them and regard them as allies. Simple deference and toadyism is best left to crumbling aristocracies.

To Chomsky I once wrote:
"I do believe that violence is an ever-present reality that has brought (and can bring) some degree of liberation. For example, when the British pulled out of Gandhi's India it wasn't just because of Gandhian satyagraha -- it was also because many Indians were starting to get up-in-arms and menacing to the empire. Similarly, here in the US, it wasn't just the freedom riders and the MLK's that brought some degree of justice to African-Americans. The black militants of that era proved that people of color were not going to be pushed around any more. They set an example and the riots may have sealed much of the equal rights deal.

As for peak oil, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the science is out there to prove it's reality. Furthermore, alternative energy is just not a realistic substitute for all of the uses for petroleum. Solar power will never move grocery store semi-trailers and wind power isn't capable of diverting the Colorado river to the people of Los Angeles. The subtle role petro-chemicals play in our lives will have a devastating effect when the petroleum they derive from is gone. Processed petro-chemicals (largely for agriculture) are the number one export of the US. I'm sure we both agree on the danger of nuclear power (and besides, it's depletable too)."

To Zinn, whom I've spoken with at two of his speaking engagements, I once asked (in my blunt youth):

"How many people do you think it would have take chained to the gates of Auschwitz to shut that camp down?" Caught off guard, he flippantly replied, "About a million," and then went on to explain that WW2 was not about freeing the Jews. And while he was right about the latter point, I couldn't disagree more with his initial response -- and I think it reveals a literally fatal flaw in Gandhian non-violence when dealing with a truly despotic regime.

To Zerzan, I played the devil's advocate in questioning his denunciation of reformist procedures. I did so, mostly, just to get a rise out of the man whom I regard as the most important anarchist philosopher of our age -- and I succeeded. He once bought me a bus ticket out of Eugene.

I beg them all now to forgive any lack of tact or social grace that I may have exhibited. Those who know me, know that I am a flawed character -- and I am painfully aware of this reality of myself. I have tried to become a milder, less objectionable person... but I probably still have a little bit of work to do in that regard.

Let me get to the point of this open letter by way of some personal history...

I am an activist, a radical activist and, in my younger days, a very radical activist. I burnt my first flag in high school while a member of the debate team and I wore its charred tatters on the back of my jacket. After that, I produced a little zine promoting veganism and Gandhian non-violence. Later, I hitchhiked up and down the the west coast with a suitcase full of Gandhi autobiographies for sale. I've been the guest anarchist on a talk radio program and I've called in countless other times to comment -- even getting through to Larry King Live once. I've protested everything from wars, to the KKK, to McDonald's (and the McDonald's I worked against most directly is now a post office).

At the WTO protest, in Seattle '99, I was not only teargassed and pepper sprayed, but I was also drugged at the Capitol Hill protest when the police ran amuck. I was encouraging people to stay in the streets and pointing out the police thugs in the crowd who were wearing the same yellow jackets as the thugs on nearby rooftops. I was generally encouraging resistance and mocking the city councilman who was trying to get people onto the sidewalks. Then a guy approached me with some funny $3 bills (with Bill Clinton's picture on them) suggesting the symbolic act of burning the money. As soon as I took the money my my fingers immediately got sticky and I noticed the guy who handed it to me was wearing gloves. He disappeared into the crowd and I tried to warn others about what just happened. A while later the councilman walked through the crowd again, looked me square in the face with a smile and asked, "So, how are you feeling?" While fairly inexperienced with most drugs, I never tripped harder in my life -- or in a more unpleasant environment. My friend and I were the last two protesters on Capitol Hill that night and I practically had to drag him away as the police were advancing through the teargas.

But it wasn't until I started publicly advocating the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (NOT engaging in their activities, mind you) that the heat really started coming down on me. (I had been run down on my bicycle by a private snowplow [in 70 degree weather] by a driver who should have seen me, but I'm not certain I can blame the sustained injuries on the state.) When I started advocating the actions of the E.L.F. I was assigned a constant tail. This worm showed up everywhere I went in town (Arcata, CA). He parked in front of my apartment (Judi Bari's old Earth First! office) and late at night, when I went to the grocery store, he would be the only other customer there. (I have good reason to believe that he was involved with the arson of the old Northcoast Environmental Center but I have no definitive proof and I am not naming names as I hope to get this article syndicated.)

Suffice it to say, this was a very psychologically taxing time. My friends, and even housemates, were behaving increasingly suspicious. I would find leaflets on my doorstep promoting self-euthanasia in support of the environment. People close to me began spreading lies about others and so... I decided to go back home to Rockford, IL. My grandmother bought me a Greyhound ticket and I began my journey home on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001.

When I arrived back home, after a long absence, my life was in shambles. Physically, mentally, spiritually and psychologically I was in shambles. I was 27 years old, defeated, living with my Grandmother and working as a clerk in a gas station/convenience store.

On the morning of November 23rd, 2001 (the day after Thanksgiving) I attempted suicide by means of self-immolation at Cherryvale Mall (in a would-be last act of protest against materialism, consumerism and generally what I felt was wrong with this messed up world). I went to the upper level, failed to handcuff myself to the thick railing, told everyone to "STAND BACK," and I lit myself on fire. Even now, seven years later, it's hard to talk about. Adbusters published an abbreviated letter I wrote on the subject and that's about all I've said about it.

I expected to die, I expected the mall to close for the day, and I expected my protest to be understood for what it was. I was wrong on all accounts. It was the worst mistake of my life -- one that I regret every day -- and I am ashamed and sorry for what I did. I am thankful to the good Samaritan who saved my life and am glad to be alive (despite being in a coma for a month and having scars over a third of my body). Suicide is a poor option and I hope no one makes the choice to do what I did. I spent 6 months in a mental institution after I got out of the burn unit and, all in all, I can't hardly imagine a more hellish experience.

You don't have to feel sorry for me (as it was my mistake and I've since tried to move on with my life in more healthy directions). But most people aren't aware of all the circumstances and, while they don't justify my actions, I do feel that I was somewhat pushed in the direction I regretfully went. Psyops are used by the U.S. government, people are drugged by the state, and healthier people than me have probably cracked; been pushed over the edge.

The three of you (to whom I address this open letter) may not have experienced this kind of thing personally, but I beg you to consider the truly insidious and diabolic nature of the state -- especially when it's agents feel they can act with impunity against someone, someone like me.

I come from very humble origins, have no degree (was expelled from high school), and socially I'm awkward even outside the realm of politics. I come from a place with horrible politics, redneck central, and standoffish eccentrism has probably served me well in that environment. But the point is... I was isolated. It's true that your books helped, but I was self-educated and radicalized on my own -- alone with hardly even any liberals around. My activism was my own and I stood alone, easily targeted.

But I don't feel that I was targeted because I was simply an activist, I think I was good at what I did. More people have probably read my writing and seen my agitprop than is realized. Sometimes as a sticker, sometimes as a leaflet, sometimes as a letter to the editor, I found ways to spread my ideas without always going through the normal channels or receiving any recognition or accolades. Regardless, I feel like the memes I've helped to spread have, in fact, spread. I even suspect that some of my original ideas may have possibly taken root. This is probably because many societal problems are at a crisis level and people feel the need for direct, radical and immediate action. In any case, ironically, the state probably has a more comprehensive summary of my activism than many of my friends (most of whom know little to none of the information I've written here).

So now that I've told you where I've been and where I'm coming from, I'll tell you where I'm at and where I'm going -- and why I've written this open letter...

I am not the agitating young firebrand I was. I'm honestly less concerned than I was with changing the world and I've realized a certain amount of futility in trying. Not that I'm hopeless, merely that I'm not expecting as much positive change or as consumed by the world's problems. These days I spend as much time playing cards, video games and fantasy baseball as I do on anything else. Nevertheless, some of my recent articles have been syndicated and even headlined at OpEdNews. I think this goes show the level-headed populism of my work. Other individuals have seen the articles at that website and reposted them elsewhere -- again demonstrating the relatively mainstream practicality of my writing. But success has come at a price... I fear that I may once again be on the governments radar.

My most recent article, "Tactics and Prognosis for a Successful RNC Protest" was headlined at the prominent anarchist site Infoshop News and that version of the article has now ranked for about a week near the top of Google search results when querying "rnc protest". As of today, it's the third listed item for that search (only after 2 links for http://protestrnc2008.org). And two other versions of the article (which random people have reposted on their own) are regularly ranking in the top 20 search results (so people looking for RNC protest information can't help but to see the article title appearing repeatedly). Consequently, while I was honored that Infoshop News headlined the article (and that others liked it enough to re-present it on their various sites), I worry now that the state may target me again for continuing to be a successfully vocal dissident. If you search for "RNC protest activist" or "RNC protest anarchist" my article is at the very top of the results page (sometimes in all the various versions, sometimes with the older articles) and that has me a bit worried -- if somewhat proud at the same time.

"Tactics and Prognosis" is the third article I've written on the subject in recent months and the other two, Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests & Be Prepared for Police Violence at the RNC Protest, also appear fairly high in various searches on the subject. In none of the articles do I encourage violence or property destruction on behalf of the protest. The rub is that I don't condemn those who are striking back against the corrupt system which is destroying their lives. In fact, I think certain levels of physically aggressive militancy are quite justifiable. But I'll say it again... I am not going to be violent or destructive at the protest (or in the foreseeable future beyond the protest for that matter). I simply don't want to go through the incarceration process again. I'll be present to stand in the streets with the masses -- armed only with cameras. If I get in trouble, despite my relative passivity, I'll be ready to make my case and tell my story.

In addition to justifying (not encouraging) physical resistance, the articles support the proposed blockade tactics (which many groups have signed onto) and also the idea of breakaway protest marches (as a permitted protest isn't much of a protest at all). The articles also present many clickable text links to video examples of police brutality (which frequently occurs at these mass protests directed especially towards non-violent protesters) and I also focus on the ways in which the corporate media outlets whitewash the criminal police misconduct. The point is that the police are supposed to be disciplined and practice restraint (even with surly protesters) but they readily brutalize even the most passive and non-violent of protesters (not to mention uninvolved passers-by). The pigs should be called out on this and potential protesters should be expecting this treatment (even as they commit to show up and express their dissent).

My fear is that I will be targeted again (as I was at the aforementioned WTO protest) for spreading these ideas in light of my previous protest history. It may even be more likely this time around.

So what I'm asking for (from Chomsky, Zerzan & Zinn) is your public support if the state goes after me. This was obviously written preemptively, but I still fear it may happen and I may at least require legal assistance if I'm not violently decapacitated in some way. You may think it grandiose and absurd of me to suggest these things because I've not had books published or gained any notable public recognition. But I've been in the streets, am going back to the streets, and I've been a part of the revolutionary liberation movement (what there is of it) for years. And that's precisely what makes me a target. I am not the idealized notion of a radical/activist, but I don't think I should be forsaken while my work is trivialized. Here is the challenge I issue to the three whom this article is addressed:

1) Publicly support and encourage people to protest the fascistic Republicans as they gather and organize in St. Paul, MN (Sept. 1-4, 2008). They are going to be networking, promoting and celebrating more of the same destruction they've already wrought.

2) Help find legal support for myself and others when we are targeted by the state for protesting, organizing, and/or advocating radical activity.

3) Consider making an effort towards finding a place for people like myself in more established radical circles. Even work as a fairly compensated wage slave could be helpful. We can write/edit/bake/sew and we deserve support from established communities (rather than being forced to work for a pittance under petit tyrants in the system we are struggling against).

I realize that these challenges combine community building with calls to action, but I only know how to make radical requests. Please respond to the best of your ability, however you may, in as timely a manner as you are capable. I am requesting that this open letter be featured at OpEdNews (as they have a good progressive network in place and deserve any traffic your responses may create). I will also be emailing this to your respective accounts and reposting it in various newsgroups (like alt.fan.noam-chomsky & alt.anarchism). I am requesting that your friends and colleagues bring this article to your attention as well. Whether any of you three choose to stoop in response to this letter, I would ask that you each publicly support a growing protest movement as energetically as you are able. Specifically to Mr. Zinn, I request that you, if you choose to disparage other forms of militancy, pointedly encourage Gandhian militancy (because Gandhi and MLK did much more than simply wave signs and march down permitted routes).

Respectfully & Sincerely,
In Revolution,
RL

Tactics and Prognosis for a Successful RNC Protest

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:20:00 +0000

This year's Republican National Convention is likely to face the most aggressive, direct action, take-to-the-streets-style protest that the U.S. has seen since the WTO was shut down in 1999. It likely will be even larger than that protest and, maybe, even more effective. Relative to the WTO, more people in this country are more aware of Republican crimes and, also, living conditions (not to mention civil liberties) have deteriorated greatly since the historic protest of the World Trade Organization. The general public is riled up and in need of protest like never before.

The organizing for this protest has been unparalleled. Use of the internet has expanded greatly over the past few years as a tool for revolutionary activists. Not only are we able to be more informed about why we should protest, but we are also more informed about how we can effectively stage a revolt against the Republican fascists. We have unprecedented access to potential lodging opportunities, caravans, and logistical considerations for this protest. Tactically, we have the works of everyone from Gandhi to Sun Tzu at our fingertips (via the world wide web). More specifically, we have access to information about this particular protest readily available. This protest is going to be historic.

WHY WE SHOULD PROTEST

People in this country have rolled over and played dead long enough. This country began with a revolt against tyrannical forces and the initial protest involved more than milquetoast finger wagging (specifically, it involved destroying government property in the form of tea). But modern Americans have been tamed and pacified. We hardly even know how to complain properly (due to fear of our fellow citizens putting us on a watch list and Big Brother surveillance having finally become a reality).

But now is the time to break our socially constructed chains of passivity and obedience. Each moment of hesitation is a moment that moves us closer to the abyss of no return. The fascists have already taken over and they have nuclear weapons (along with the mindset to use, improve and spread them). This cannot, must not, be tolerated any longer.

America has become a police state. More people are imprisoned in the U.S. per-capita, and in total numbers, than in any other nation. Surveillance cameras have become common on street corners in every major U.S. city (to say nothing of the cameras which the state can sequester). Our phones and computer networks have bluntly been opened up to eavesdropping by the state. Even the so-called "opposition" party has signed on to these intrusions. The state has the ability, will, and the documented history of attempting to crush dissent in it's infancy. The aforementioned violations and intrusions make these trends of power evermore simple to carry out in the effort to reach their fascistic goals of centralized power.

The fascistic state is carrying out immoral wars of aggression against civilian populations (certainly with large civilian casualties) around the world. If you haven't noticed this reality you've been living under Iraq... I mean, a rock. Anyway... the question is: what are you going to do about it? Blogging about it, even waving banners and signs, has had very little effect in stopping the war crimes. Funny that the state doesn't respond to humanitarian petitions, but it doesn't. It continues to plan, promote, and celebrate the war. That's what the Republicans will been doing in St. Paul (the week of Sept. 1, 2008) and that's why we need to take to the streets and shut their convention down.

Beyond the Iraq War and the growing police state, Republican policies (hand in hand with the Democrats) are causing human suffering and environmental degradation around the globe. People are starving at this very moment and the Republicans will be toasting in St. Paul with $525/shot scotch. The environment is being laid to waste and the Republicans promote more drilling for oil. So where do you really stand on these issues or, do you not take a stand at all?

HOW WE WILL PROTEST THE RNC

Already I have mentioned the blogging articles written, like this one, and that's all fine and dandy -- necessary even. But this protest will give us the opportunity to really take a stand and make a statement to the world. We are done rolling over.

Most people who attend the protest will come to take place in the permitted march. They will gather in the ten-of-thousands and march and chant and carry signs. They are to be half-heartedly saluted and congratulated for their courage. These marchers will be good people with good intentions. It's just that a permitted protest isn't really much of a protest. They have been given permission so as to pacify them further (to keep them in line) and their march won't really hinder the Republican party. This type of "protest" is best left for the elderly and the feeble (to whom I would give a whole-hearted salute and sincere congratulations for their courageous participation).

But the march from the State Capitol to the Xcel Energy center is a logistical nightmare. The initially requested route was denied and the route given will, by most estimates, not be large enough to contain the teeming masses in attendance. And then, when it gets to the convention center, it's supposed to double back on itself! It's possible that some will still be leaving the Capitol grounds when others are starting their return. The whole way there (down Cedar to 7th Street) the marchers will be flanked, on both sides, by hundreds of police officers who will effectively be intimidating and demoralizing the marchers. Just be aware that once you get into the main march it will be hard to get out of it.

Fortunately, there will be plenty of alternative actions (requiring various degrees of commitment) in addition to the permitted protest march. With tens of thousands of protesters (and only about 3500 police officers), a breakaway/secondary march is the most likely, and least extreme, alternative protest tactic. If hundreds of people can resist being intimidated (by a few dozen officers at any given intersection), they should be able to go wherever they want in downtown St. Paul. These breakaway/alternative marches will actually make the permitted march useful since it will still be the most heavily policed area. I expect the breakaway marches will head down John Ireland Blvd. to Kellogg and/or another might head southeast (Away from the capitol grounds), but this is pure speculation. The first "alternative" route down John Ireland was the originally requested (and denied) route -- so it seems the most likely path for people who want to go where they choose. If the police decide to try and be present at multiple routes they will spread their forces thin and the marches can flow wherever the crowd takes them regardless of police scare tactics. The thing to remember is that a breakaway/alternative route is going to require a sizable bloc of people to initially be a little pushy in demanding their rights to free movement.

These breakaway marches will effectively serve as a roving blockade to prevent the Republicans from gathering, promoting and celebrating their polices of war and destruction. I honestly don't know where they will go (or how effective they will be) but I guarantee that large groups of freedom-loving people will tend to go where their hearts lead them. Hopefully these roving blockades will go to the west and the south of the Xcel Energy Center (where most of the off-ramps and convention entrances are). They won't have to take the most direct route to get there (bring a small map) and they can take their time getting where they need to go. How effective these breakaway marches will be depends on how likely people are to hold their ground and march right past a relatively small number of police. Hopefully these protesters won't be too intimidated or faint-hearted, but they should consider the real risks that some of the other people at this protest will be taking...

Some people will be engaged in hard-blockade, locked-down civil disobedience. I don't know exactly who or where these people will be doing this civil disobedience, but I know for a fact that it WILL be happening. Just think WTO and you'll get the idea. They expect to be arrested and probably, also, physically abused. These are brave souls intent on stopping the Republican war machine. They effectively will be saying, "the Republicans will not pass."

The next level of risk involves those who, like at the Boston Tea Party, see property destruction as a powerful symbolic act. This is generally a bit more controversial because many people in our pacified conservative society don't get the idea that a window isn't alive and breaking one isn't on the same level as pepper-spraying, beating or executing someone. If breaking the window of a war-profiteering corporation is violent... then tazing someone for it is utter brutality. But it's the former that's more likely to get punished and condemned. I, for one, don't condemn those who will engage in minor property destruction. These corporations that are directly involved with the destruction of the environment and war-profiteering might deserve a brick through their window if no other real justice is going to be meted out and their corporate crimes are going to continue. A smashed window gives them a black eye like a written-off fine cannot (since they budget for their violations and expect trivial lawsuits). I most certainly (and absolutely) won't be engaged in this type of activity myself, because I'm a coward, but I can't condemn those who aren't so spineless.

The next type of protester is the one who has been utterly screwed-over by the system. He lost a brother in Iraq. He lost a sister to the drug war. His father is incarcerated for a non-violent crime. His pension was destroyed in some Enron scandal. He's unemployed and won't take a job at McDonald's for minimum wage. This guy is not happy, and for good reason. What do you expect him to do, write his congressperson? You want him to hold a sign saying, "Out of Iraq," or maybe whistle and dance at some "revolutionary" street party? Well, I got news for you... this guy is going to fight back. I don't blame him and I won't condemn him. I won't join him, because I'm a coward, but I won't try to stop him or get him arrested either.

It is the police who are inevitably brutal at these mass protests and I don't mind a guy kicking back a tear-gas cannister or even throwing a rock at the heavily armoured police with their shields. These kinds of protesters actually keep the rank-and-file police in check because, when people are ready to fight back, and ready to defend themselves, the cops can't just come in and club everybody for merely walking where they want to walk. A few such people like this in your march (and there are more than you might imagine) can keep you from getting totally bludgeoned by the police. I really don't expect there to much actual violence on behalf of the protesters though (since it would be very atypical and since most of the wild ones end up in cages or are culled by the state).

One final suggestion on protest tactics... save some energy for later in the day and/or for later in the week. Be loud when confronted, but quiet when you are not engaged in what might be considered actual protest.

HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PROTEST

Even if you're not able to physically attend the protest (for whatever good or bad reason) you can still support the protest (it basically just requires the simple effort of plugging in). But first... I should mention that some of the clickable links above will provide you with all the information you need if you just show up in St. Paul (prepared and preferably with at least one friend).

If not able to personally attend... you can lend moral support, legal support, and/or financial support (if you want to help a friend or organization cover the costs of participating in the protest). Some people are working on textmob systems so that protesters will be able to communicate with other protesters, in real time, about developing events in other areas of the city. Others will be editing and distributing footage sent in from the protest so that the corporate media doesn't have the first and last word on what happened at the protest. Some people might simply be staying by a phone to help keep coordinate and touch base with their activist friends.

BE THE MEDIA

Finally... I'd like to request that you don't let the corporate media steer public opinion about the protest. The Republicans are oligarchic fascists. They are literally fascists by definition. They perfectly embody Mussolini's ideal mixture of "corporate and state power" (and corporatism by any other name would smell as sweet). They will be networking, organizing, and promoting their destructive policies at the RNC and that is why it has to be shut down.

When they toast with their $525/shot scotch it is a direct provocation. How can they celebrate and cheer as thousands are dying in the wars they promote?! How can they spend so lavishly when hundreds of millions are malnourished and people around the world are rioting over food costs? These are the questions a critical press should really be asking. But you will be required to speak on behalf of the protesters who are on the scene and ask these questions yourself in any forum you are able. You must work to prevent the demonization of the protesters as the police become brutal and the Republican devils get away with murder around the globe.

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION (Sept. 1-4, 2008 -- St Paul, MN)
HELP MAKE HISTORY!

Also see:

Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests

www.crashtheconventions.org

Some more RNC Links

And please check out the clickable links in this article! Some of them might impress you or give you another angle on the protest activity which you may have not considered before.

An Aging Radical on Race and Politics

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:23:00 +0000

I don't write much these days. Formerly I wrote quite a bit about radical politics and social transformation, but I've grown weary of that practice and it never really seemed to amount to much anyway. In my experience it's often thankless work if you're promoting revolutionary changes because there aren't that many who can truly appreciate radical ideas. And, even if some do appreciate the ideas, they usually couldn't help you in many ways even if they were so inclined. Anti-materialistic philosophy often effects the choices people make in their lives (in terms of acquiring and dispersing even the most fundamental necessities). And these days a guaranteed home and food supply, to say nothing of ample leisure, is often considered something of a luxury. The progress of the civilized world has led us to a place of slums and hundreds of millions being severely malnourished. I could, and will, go on highlighting the serious shortcomings of the modern global system -- but that's just a backdrop to the ideas I will be trying to develop in this article.

This is difficult for me because I am loathe to discuss the topics of the title which relentlessly cause so much stress, in so many ways, in so many lives. However, I think these things are important to consider and thoughtful consideration is still something that I have a bit of respect for. So I am going to present some ideas here which will inevitably be received as somewhat controversial by so many backwards regressive types who run roughshod over everyone and everything they can. Controversy is not my goal. Neither is addressing the criticism of small corrupted minds. Once again... it's thoughtful consideration which I hope to engage in, and possibly inspire, to some degree. If I could make these ideas into single soundbite or a pill which you could pop for enlightenment, I would -- but I am not Fox News or Pfizer. These ideas are best presented with a well developed background and so, as wildly as the world is spinning out of control, I'm not going to rush what I have to say. If you don't have the attention span to take a few minutes to consider these subjects (about which some of you might even fancy yourselves as experts), then you are possibly part of the problem. And I don't herein present myself as infallible, but I will try here to be honest and, again, only hope to make some of us think a bit. The tone of this article will be blunt, casual, and frank -- it's the only way I can write it.

RACE

Like many Americans, I have very limited knowledge about my racial or ethnic history. I know that I am pale and ate at McDonald's as child. If people feel they can or can't trust me because of these things, I can understand the conditioning that would lead to that narrow-mindedness. But to provide a background of my own experience, here are the specifics that I know about my own personal ethnic/racial makeup... One grandfather claimed his relatives came from a country between France and Germany which no longer exists. Obviously this doesn't tell me much and, frankly, I'm not sure where he's talking about or if he had any real clue himself. He and his family were farmers in Arkansas, perhaps cotton-pickers like my grandmother and her family. For how many decades or centuries they were there doing that, I simply don't know. They were incredibly poor, like so many others, and there is no family crest which contains our family history beneath it. They are pale people with black and blonde hair. My grandmother's family was very pious in the Baptist strain and she still reads the Bible every day. Her husband's family (the family of my aforementioned grandfather) seems to have struggled from an early age since his father died when he was very young and, culturally, about all I can say about him is that he was a worker -- on the railroad, in the navy, building cars, etc. That grandfather was referred to by many of my friends as "the most racist person" they had ever met -- and I need to tell you that this paper may get disturbing in many ways that some of you might have a hard time reading.

My other grandfather (on my Father's side) was 1/2 Blackfoot-Sioux. I met him only on brief occasions when I was very young but I recall that he was a thin man with jet black hair and dark skin. My father had similar (but less prominent) features and I only retain the bone structure of their faces (my skin is pale and my hair is dirty blonde like my mother's). My father's mother I know almost nothing at all about. She was a plump woman and I once had a dream that she was Jewish. They were dirt farmers, she and my grandfather. Once I was attacked by a mother hen when my little cousin and I snuck into their chicken coop with a toy gun.

Culturally my father retained some things, very few things, that I ascribe to his Native American heritage -- and that basically amounts to his being an adamant sportsman. When I was a child he and I would go fishing before school, after school, and again late at night to check the trot lines. He was an avid hunter and I've eaten much venison, and even the occasional creature like a squirrel. That is all I culturally credit to his Native American heritage. Beyond that... he was assimilated into several other less pleasant cultural activities -- like working in the factory and driving a big truck. Yee haw. His childhood was very violent, from what I have gleaned in regard to his brothers and sisters, who were apparently very abusive. These are violent tendencies which he brought to my mother and I, but I won't go much in to the extent or the details about that -- except to say that one time when I was a child I tried to bludgeon him with a bat when he was beating my mother. I ran out of my room and swung it at him but he caught it in his hand and I had given him a weapon. I ran to the Polish neighbor lady across the street who was teaching me to read. But these are issues of westernized culture, which transcend the race and ethnicity of my heritage (which I actually know so little about).

My father ended up being my idea of a "good ol' boy." He was always trying to do whatever was culturally popular with his group of workers. To tie this with race (in way that is only as random and abstract as life usually is)... I remember him being on a softball team one season as the token "white" guy. It's an odd recollection and, as strange as it sounds, I remember him telling me that I was black on several occasions. I think this was some sort of mind-fuck that you'd just have to experience to truly appreciate. He wasn't the most overtly racist guy in the world (certainly not compared to my grandfather on my mother's side) but he wasn't beyond making racist jokes (outside of "mixed" company) which, I guess, in a sense, were a joke about race overall as I look back on it today. It's hard to explain and I don't justify or forgive any bullshit concepts he held or may have expressed. I'm just trying to give my experience in the hopes that it may give others some insight into the issues that surround us so often. I can only speak about what I know, and this is what I've got -- it's not theoretical.

My aforementioned racist grandfather was a real number. Light-hearted sometimes, but not one to deal with people's bullshit. He had a work ethic. Often in his life he held down more than one full-time job (so as to be able to provide for his wife and five kids). He hated the television show "All In The Family" because he practically was Archie Bunker! He made Archie Bunker seem tame, but it must have seemed like everyone was laughing at him when they laughed at Archie. Oh man, he was such a curmudgeon too. I'd get a "Peace & Justice" newsletter in the mail (I lived with him for several years) and he'd begrudgingly give it to me as he berated me for being involved with "this peace bullshit." BUT... he wasn't all bad. I don't say this (as some would try to see it) to prove my credentials, but my best friend in high-school (and a lost love of my life) was a black girl. We talked on the phone constantly and she'd come over often. Grandpa would be all peaches and cream. It was so surreal, but I think he was genuinely fond of her. Like so many others, he couldn't maintain his utterly despicable behaviour in the presence of a truly wonderful individual. He'd say a few things when she had gone but... he couldn't and didn't say much. I'm sure I pre-empted his worst (as I had learned to do), but he also must have truly felt the pain of his hypocrisy. A similar thing happened when I had a relationship with a Jewish girl for about a year. I remember telling her some of the things he had said in the past, not realizing how uncommonly awful they were, and she was upset -- but again, around her, he was peaches and cream, and I truly believe that he appreciated and recognized these lovely young women as just that.

Perhaps some of you can relate to incidents like these I've described, others maybe not so much, but these are some of my basic experiences in regard to race and racism. There are some others I can relate (and perhaps will) but I write this in the hopes that it may inspire some thoughtful consideration. My mother was against racism (one of her few good qualities) and she and others I have known (combined with a healthy dose of the The Cosby Show) are probably why I wasn't indoctrinated in worse ways. But I recognize racism in others, and have from an early age. I remember Katrina, the only black girl in class, crying in the third grade because someone said the "n-word" and then the teacher tried to get the idea across (unsuccessfully) that "nigger" wasn't a bad word. Then, in high-school, during my sophomore year, there was an integration project put into effect that closed West High School and led to kids from the west side being bused across the river to Jefferson High School. Racial tensions were very high. There were some hall monitors who were employed as diplomats, of sorts, but some of them were actually very racist. I remember one of those monitors berating a girl I was talking to in the library because he knew about kids like me "who wear the leather jackets and cry when their friends die (of suicide)," and so he wanted to know why she was talking to me. But the real event was a full blown race riot at the high school. My friends and I were just getting back from lunch and, as we were walking in, several dozen of the long-hair kids (we called them "stoneys" and they liked AC/DC, Metallica, and hot-rod Cameros) all started running out. Then, dozens more of the black kids started pouring out of the school after them exchanging blows with them the whole time. It was pretty serious and the next day was the lowest attendance day in school history. I took pride in finally not cutting class and being a small fraction of the student body attending. I don't know what more to say about that incident but it was 1990 and racial conflict was plain as day. Smaller skirmishes continued in my school till I was finally expelled for lack of attendance and general mischief. Suffice it to say that, like many others, I dealt with overt racism, from all sides, at an early age -- and I recognize its reality in many forms.

Once in my mid-twenties, when I was in Oakland CA, I had a conversation with a guy who was involved with the modern Black Panthers and black power movements. It's fine that, "Free Mumia" et al, but the thing that stuck out in my head was his denigration of my ancestral reality in regard to my Native American grandfather. It was his position that every white boy with a drop of indian blood couldn't claim any of that heritage, in any way, because they still looked pale and could get by in modern Amerikan society easier than a person of color. To a degree I could see his point but on the other hand... I have anti-industrial and pro-primitivism tendencies (and I would revive the old Native ways if it were in my power). Just because I may not look a certain way, or because I am only genetically related to some degree, that should not preclude me from from my tendencies to identify with those people in any way at all. This seems to be the system's method of pigeonholing people and robbing them of any cultural heritage or of any desires to reclaim it. You are black, you are white, you are asian, etc. And there is a tendency to simplify it even beyond that because all the masters really want us to be is subservient consumers. Race is tied with cultural heritage and, if we want reclaim something in life more substantial than what the techno-industrial system provides us, we are potentially a destabilizing factor within that system. The more standardized the basic realities of race and heritage become the easier we are to market to and the easier it is for us all to get along side-by-side at the factory on the assembly line. It's the basic formula of the melting pot -- wipe out, assimilate, or enslave (and if it can be done without the people knowing or caring then it's all the more effective).

There is something of a paradox in strongly identifying with people of similar racial makeup or appearance. Ideally, if it led to preserving sustainable cultural pathways that had been in place for generations, that would be a good thing. But when we add strong racial identity with the techno-industrial system we get something more like the Nazis. And even if we don't end up with the wholesale genocide of other groups (as when races are co-opted, assimilated, and homogenized), when it happens that a people take on the habits of techno-industrial civilization their fundamental values change and, in the name of progress, they become equally destructive in other ways. It can be as pronounced as the devastation caused by Chernobyl & Bhopal or as subtle as a cop of color oppressing the poor people of his own neighborhood -- all in the name of law, order, democracy and progress.

Obviously there is much more to racism than these few experiences described thus far, but personal experience can not help but to make us ponder. It should make us ponder. This is a problem that relates to class and historical identities. It relates to the tendency that some people have to dominate others and maintain power and control. So many other horrible things are happening in the world but still we are forced to confront the reality of racism, blind stupid hate, for the most superficial reasons. This is a subject not conducive to frank talk and open discussion and many are very engrained in their backwards indoctrination. Knowledge of that reactionary indoctrination makes it difficult to overcome because no matter how people identify, there will be some with whom they identify that have these backwards ideas. And there should be no shame in having beautiful black skin or long blonde hair, but there will always be someone around who dislikes you for those very cosmetic reasons. And self-preservation or the desire for upward social mobility can make people prone to use their racial appearance to get ahead and stay ahead of the rat race. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's something that happens and there are too many stupid people indoctrinating too many children of every race, creed, and color -- so it's probably not a situation that will go away any time soon. But while your appearance may get you ahead somewhat with some groups... the lack of upward mobility, and the oppression of others, makes for general social unrest around the world.

African Americans are undoubtedly treated unfairly in the USA and around the world. Tiger Woods may go to the the country clubs, Phil Ivey may bluff Doyle Brunson in the biggest poker games, and Barrack Obama may even become president, but if poor general conditions continue to exist for the vast majority of dark-skinned people, even the success of those men may be seen as tenuous. I'm not saying that Tiger, Phil, or Barack should necessarily do anything much different, but we should all be mindful of the bigger scenario and realize that we all suffer -- black, white, rich, and poor -- because of the backwards state of the world and superficial racist politics.

And that brings me to why I got it into my head to write this article. In the past I have been opposed to the oligarchic two-party corporate industrial politics of the USA, particularly in regard to presidential politics, but if there has to be a figurehead for the beast, maybe it doesn't have to be the most bat-shit crazy, spoiled corrupt cracker that we can find. Maybe if we can get into office someone who has undoubtedly experienced oppression and racism from the under-side... maybe we can see some things change for the better. I don't want to sound overly hopeful, nor do I want responsibility for any of the corrupt things he inevitably does in office, but I think Barack Obama (or perhaps another Black politician later) might be able to pull a Putney Swope and effect real change. (For those of you unfamiliar with the film Putney Swope, it's about a brother who backs into the Chairman's seat of a major advertising firm and institutes some black power values. It's hilarious.) And I don't think Obama will be nearly as radical as Putney Swope (in fact I fear the opposite) but I feel like a president of color might effect some change. And even if Obama (or another black politician) were to campaign with the claim that more black Americans would go to jail and get worse health care, I can't help but to believe that persons of color would be holding out hope that, if elected, they wouldn't be as awful as they seemed while campaigning.

But there is the rub. Obama could end up being the Democratic equivalent of Clarence Thomas and not really change all that much in regard to the status quo of any American (much less any African Americans). Are we supposed to take at face value his recent praise of Ronald Reagan?! Even if that was an attempt to woo a few insane Republicans, it's still scary politicking and I'd hate to think he might actually be sincere. We need very fundamental changes in the USA and the ideas he implements need to be bigger than the ideas he's campaigning on. Perhaps he's trying to stay mellow and subdued and conservative during the campaign, but there are a few things I think he could say that would transcend race and improve the conditions of the average American.

POLITICS

First... the war on Iraq. Beyond oil, this is also just another war on dark-skinned people around the world. Millions are dying in Iraq (directly from the bombing, collapsed infrastructure, and now civil war) and American soldiers of every race are dying in this unjust war. The general american public opposes this war and a more aggressive withdrawal plan could be presented with support from the vast majority of the population at home and abroad. The financial cost of this war alone should be enough to finally convince the masses that it must end. It's a simple position, it's a popular position, and withdrawal is a key election issue.

And the cost of the war, while effecting all Americans, disproportionately effects African Americans who already receive much worse health care and other rectifying social services (this is money that could be spent on housing, education, and the arts). End the war and promote health care, preventative health care, and you have another very popular position.

And then you have the issue of the prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs. This is an issue which again effects all Americans but African Americans disproportionately. Perhaps again he's being conservative after his admitted use as a youth, but these are issues which the American population can relate to and it could easily be framed in terms of economics. Rehabilitation is cheaper and the easing of racial conflict brought on by the system would also be a boon. America is becoming a police state. People don't like it (they should like it less) and they can be persuaded to vote against the police state. His mixed support for the Patriot Act and back-peddling on FISA is very troubling. In the future we can only hope that he will take stronger stands against this type of totalitarian legislation. These are issues which effect all Americans and people around the world as well.

Finally... the environment. This again is an issue which effects the poor and persons of color disproportionately. But it is an issue which transcends race, class, gender and even partly lines. It is an issue which could be undertaken by a prominent candidate like Obama without fear of losing votes. The grassroots environmental movement is a very large voting block and, by making quality propositions to regulate industry and to actually reduce consumption (a politically peculiar idea which needs to be promoted), the world could be preserved for future generations and made a better place to live. Wars over resources would decrease and health would improve in every area. This could be made a key election item. (I would like to point out as an aside that bio-fuels are inefficient and that the agricultural run-off is polluting the waterways. We need to consume less, not find different things to consume.)

CONCLUSION

I honestly don't hold out much hope for the system at all. I'm skeptical that any decent person could ever be elected president. Worse, if a wise and moral person were ever allowed to take office they would be taking responsibility for a system that has already run amuck and which may be beyond redemption or repair. Or, if they were to actually try and force the major reforms necessary, the system and the population would have to endure some hardships which they may not be prepared to handle. For example... to avert further environmental degradation, nay disaster, our per capita consumption would have to decrease. And, because many people's standard of success and happiness are tied up to corrupted ideals of materialism, this change would be seen as a negative. The economic waves created by some of the necessary changes to the techno-industrial system could lead to other perceived hardships like unemployment and the associated problems with that. And this change would not just be isolated to the U.S. (as other nations would have their economic systems thrown into upheaval as the U.S. attempted to become a more sustainable and humane entity). Even if the U.S. were able to transition smoothly, the consequences of other governments collapsing could bring terrible consequences here.

Another ethical problem people create for themselves by voting is the responsibility that they then take on for the problems created by those elected officials. Heaven forbid that anyone should vote successfully and elect a totalitarian warmonger, but simply by participating in the election process you are giving legitimacy to whomever gets elected, whether you've voted for them or not. This seems especially true since the presidential election was so blatantly stolen in 2000 and most probably in 2004 as well. Nevertheless... those that seize power legitimately, or by sleight of hand, can proclaim that the process was carried out and that everyone who participated should respect the outcome. The whole thing is presented and treated like a game in which no one should behave like a sore loser. If only it were a game.

So this article does not amount to an endorsement of anyone or encourage you to vote, but it does hold out hope that someone (or some group of people) might someday be able to somehow make a positive change in the system -- but bringing about that change may be far more complicated than many imagine.

Spoiler Alert! The Dark Knight is an Unmasked Bush Apologist

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:31:00 +0000

This is partially a review of the new Batman movie (The Dark Knight), as well as a look at the questionable actions and the cultural impact of the comic book character. Bruce Wayne/Batman is clearly a villain, not a hero.

read more | digg story

Be Prepared for Police Violence at the RNC Protest

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:43:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece entitled "Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests" which (as of writing this) still ranks fairly high in the Google News search results for "RNC Protests". In that article I provided a history of past convention protests, reasons why people will be protesting this convention, and I gave some tips on how to prepare for it if you plan on attending. This current essay is in response to some of the few critiques of that piece which appeared around the web.

The main thrust of the criticism was directed at this paragraph (which was taken largely out of context):

"The anger and the ferocity of the protesters will vary, but I ask you to consider who your real allies are and who the actual enemy is. While some will stay on the parade routes, some will not. Still others might lock-down to block delegates or to draw more attention to the protest. And lastly, still others might even vandalize corporate property. And concerning this last group I ask you to consider this... the bank whose window they smash (or spraypaint) may have foreclosed on their family's home, pulled an Enron on their life savings, or maybe that corporation simply supported the war machine and deforestation. Vandalism is not violence, causing bankruptcy or starvation or war actually is. It is a betrayal of the protest to assist the police in catching petty vandals (who may be morally justified in their actions)."

I stand by this statement. What most of the critics did not seem to grasp was the fact that people ARE angry, and some WILL be surly and aggressive, but that should not give the police carte blanche to engage in their typically heavy handed tactics with the larger protest body. The police should also be restrained in dealing with those who are aggressively standing up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- even if those people engage in minor property destruction or violence. The point is... the police are supposed to be trained for discipline and fairly restrained but, in actuality, they very rarely are restrained at these protests.

Even when the protesters are of the tamest variety, the police use violence (from tear gas and pepper-spray to clubs and rubber bullets). One critic suggested that the protesters should give the police "no reason to use violence." But the fact of the matter is, throughout history, non-violent civil disobedience has often been met by the state with brute force. Totally uninvolved people (who weren't even protesting) have been brutalized by the police (and not necessarily even during protests). Police forces are trained for violence, carry weaponry every day, and are often comprised of people who have violent and aggressive temperaments. Ignore this reality at your own peril, but please do not blame the victims of police brutality (which is a very real phenomenon).

In preparation for this upcoming protest at the RNC in St. Paul (Sept. 1, 2008), the mainstream media is already skewing the reality of violence at past protests. The protest at the DNC convention in '68 was A POLICE RIOT. The WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle '99 also was classified (by the state itself) as A POLICE RIOT and the Seattle police chief was forced to resign shortly after the events surrounding that event. Similar events took place in Miami at the FTAA protest in 2003. These are just a few examples from recent history, but the list could go on and on.

Now the state and their corporate media tools are preemptively raising the spectre of terrorism and invoking the unprecedented likelihood of a WMD attack or some other horrific event (and equating these things with a riot [as if the police have not been the primary participants of past riots]). The reality is that they are conditioning the public while preparing to use typically excessive force in their efforts to escort wealthy Republican warmongers past the generally non-violent protesters.

But my intention is obviously not to condemn those protesters who have potentially had their lives ruined by the system and who are now prepared to take to the streets as they attempt to hold their ground against the corporate police state. The police are going to abuse them whether they peaceably assemble or not and the system is going to continue raking them over the coals whether they protest or not. It is therefore my belief that some righteous indignation (and justifiable anger) will not only be good for this protest (which is preparing to use a blockade strategy to prevent Republicans from celebrating and promoting their policies of war, imperialism, and the destruction of human rights and liberties) but it's also inevitable -- people will violently resist when their lives are being threatened and their world is being destroyed. When people have their life, liberty, and basic needs stripped from them, true justice requires taking a firm stand in self defense (for the sake of dignity itself and to prevent further abuses). I'm NOT saying that I want these protests to be violent, I'm merely saying that people have not completely had their spirits crushed in this country and they have not yet been genetically engineered with sheep genes.

The debate about violence can continue elsewhere -- (is it ever justified and, if so, when?) -- but I'm merely reminding people that it is the state which institutes violence at every level of it's existence and mild retaliation or self-defense against it should not surprise anyone. Furthermore, supposed non-violent protesters or activists should not try to justify the state's violence or help the state apprehend anyone who is engaging in questionable activity. It's one thing to claim non-violence as a principle, but as soon as you assist the violent police state you give up any legitimate right to that claim. The police at the RNC will be defending veritable war criminals and they should not have free reign to brutally beat down those who oppose such villainy.

Concerning corporate property damage... throwing a brick through the window of some war-profiteering corporation is nothing compared to the violence the state would issue to someone who engages in such an act -- and that is precisely the problem. Violence against property & profit is put on the same level as violence against people -- and the former is arguably not violence AT ALL! Smashing a bottle in the street (even if it belongs to someone else), for instance, is not violent -- neither the bottle nor the asphalt is alive and they no feel pain -- but violently beating or imprisoning someone for making such a mess... that IS violent because people are actually alive and do feel pain. The same holds true if we are talking about a McDonald's sign or bank's window. Even if you agree with their corporate practices, symbolic property destruction IS NOT violence. Turning people in to the police for doing such things however... now we are starting to talk about violence towards actual living people.

So many protesters are planning to show up at the RNC protests prepared to defend themselves with body armor and gas masks, and I can't blame them. The economy is being laid to waste along with the environment. More people are imprisoned in total numbers, and per capita, here in the U$A than in any other country. The war is increasing the chances for terrorism -- by both fundamentalist abroad and from the psychologically scarred soldiers who are returning from the Iraq war. We need to muster some real resistance to this and not condemn those who are ready to fight for life and freedom.

The Republicans who are attending the RNC to celebrate and promote their destructive policies are not your allies -- and neither are the police who will use brute force to clear the path for them. Be prepared for police brutality and be prepared to defend yourselves and others. Taking a stand against these forces could prove to be a turning point in American history.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Be-Prepared-for-Police-Vio-by-Ray-Louis-080709-968.html

Thoughts on the Upcoming RNC Protests

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:09:00 +0000

With Hillary Clinton's ill-advised utterance about RFK's assassination in 1968, we were reminded of certain disturbing political realities. And, in hearkening back to that particular age of political upheaval and protest, we are reminded of the police riot which occurred at that year's Democratic National Convention in the aftermath of Robert Kennedy's assassination. (clickable video links)

The protesters then were in Chicago to stand up for their rights and to oppose an unjust and disastrous war. They had as good a reason as ever to protest and their actions and memories should be honored by all freedom loving people. And, while the spirit of protest still flickers in the U.S., the police forces in this country have not stopped violently overreacting to even the tamest of protests. Quite arguably, the police are less tolerant of dissent today than they were in 1968.

As anyone who has been to a mass protest in the last few years can tell you, the police show up in large numbers and they are not afraid to overstep their own legal bounds to defend their corporate masters. They infiltrate protest groups and have even been known to take positions of leadership within them (so as to direct the protests and report on any perceived illegality by legitimate protesters). In this post 9/11 technocracy one can also believe that they are using electronic surveillance to keep tabs on protesters of all stripes. And I write this not to stifle passionate dissent, but only to make the realities of modern protest clear to those who will bravely, and by necessity, proceed to express their righteous indignation in the face of power. Those engaged in any protest activity should be mindful of what the agents of the state can, and will, do to stifle legitimate political dissent at any given protest.

The focus of this article is on the upcoming protests at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, September 1-4, 2008. I'm not focusing upon the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO, August 25-28, 2008 for one main reason...I simply don't think the protests will be as large (although I do feel the Democratic Party could use some protest as well). In large part, the convention protests this year will, understandably, be about the war in Iraq. With the Democrats apparently fielding a somewhat anti-war candidate in Barack Obama, and the Republicans going with a decidedly pro-war candidate in John McCain, the question of who will see the larger protests is answered quite easily. Obama's apparent progressivism will also give anti-McCain protesters a little more enthusiasm than they may have had in years past. Also... Obama's heritage will inspire more people to get involved beyond the stereotypical white, middle-class caricature.

As I've said, this year's protest will largely be about the war, but have no question... those who show up will also be in protest of a myriad of other state sanctioned injustices. Climate change and environmental degradation are issues potentially even more serious than the atrocious war. Others will be angry about the revision of the constitution and the disposal of habeas corpus. Some will be demanding the impeachment of Bush. Still others will be in protest of what's been done to the economy and their livelihoods. All are legitimate reasons to protest and all will be represented.

The RNC protests will likely have a festive air some of the time. Notable philosophers and radical activists will give talks at the counter-convention, literature of all sorts will be distributed, banners will be unfurled, puppets and costumes will undoubtedly be paraded, and there will be excessive singing and dancing in the streets. I say "excessive singing and dancing" because I imagine that Iraqi war protests are far more somber and, it seems to me, that many protesters forget why they are there when the protest "festivities" begin. But the real protest will not be a parade or a festival -- and you can be sure that the authorities will not be treating any of it as such.

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of those preparing for this protest, I would ask that they prepare with both eyes open. They need to know that thousands of law enforcement officials, from all the agencies, will be in town with the Republican delegates. AGAIN, I write this not to discourage but only to prepare. There will be cops in full riot gear, on bikes and horses, in helicopters, and on rooftops. There will undoubtedly be undercover officers amongst the protesters themselves at every stage. I will repeat sage advice here, do not engage or cooperate with the law enforcement officials in any way that can be helped.

The anger and the ferocity of the protesters will vary, but I ask you to consider who your real allies are and who the actual enemy is. While some will stay on the parade routes, some will not. Still others might lock-down to block delegates or to draw more attention to the protest. And lastly, still others might even vandalize corporate property. And concerning this last group I ask you to consider this... the bank whose window they smash (or spraypaint) may have foreclosed on their family's home, pulled an Enron on their life savings, or maybe that corporation simply supported the war machine and deforestation. Vandalism is not violence, causing bankruptcy or starvation or war actually is. It is a betrayal of the protest to assist the police in catching petty vandals (who may be morally justified in their actions).

It will be HOT in early September, even in Minnesota! Dress accordingly and carry enough water for at least yourself. You may also want to carry simple but effective particle filter masks in case the police start indiscriminately using pepper-spray or tear-gas. You do not want the protest to end just because the police start using their typical heavy-handed tactics, but do wear comfortable shoes in case you have to run. Carry cameras to film the POLICE, not to document any misdeeds of your fellow protesters. Consider being a legal observer or a street medic.

I expect this to be one of the biggest and most passionate protests in American history. It is a good and necessary thing, part of our civil duty, but be prepared if you plan on showing up. Know why you are there, how you expect to help, and the message you want to convey (in case you get interviewed by the media [who you may actually not want to talk to]). Be as bold as you can be and maintain strict solidarity with the other protesters who will be showing up from all over the country.

The Impeachment of Bush is Imminent, Just in Time

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:25:00 +0000

Until Scott McClellan's whistle-blowing expose was brought forward I, like so many others, thought Congressmen Wexler & Kucinich (and the Ralph Nader-types) were just fighting the good fight. Good, but without much hope. Suddenly though, as with so many revolutions, the miracle conditions manifested themselves in dramatic fashion. One little boy, McClellan in this case, revealed that the emperor was wearing no clothes and then, suddenly, everyone could see it was true. And again, many people knew it, but none had as close of a look as McClellan did -- and he couldn't stomach what he saw. So now, thanks to his revelations, those tilling the ground for impeachment have proven that the soil was fertile. The former press secretary has painted a picture perfect image of what most of us could only see from afar.

From his cocaine use, to manipulating the public into war because of 9/11. From mishandling the Katrina disaster to outing a covert CIA operative for political reasons. The list of crimes and abuses of power by President Bush (and his administration) goes on and on. But you didn't have to be a disillusioned congressman or a preeminent consumer advocate to know that something was wrong in the country. Aside from some polls immediately after 9/11, Bush has had approval ratings as low or lower than Nixon's. And Cheney's approval ratings are appropriate for somebody who shoots his friends in the face. But approval ratings aren't what matter -- what matters is that nearly everyone could see and feel that Bush was destroying America.

We might have been more aware earlier on about the disastrous path that Bush was leading us down if only the shock of 9/11 hadn't caused us to overlook the Enron collapse engineered by Bush's pal (Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay). And, unlike Enron, it turned out that most of us weren't heavily invested in the very successful Halliburton business. So, economically, the average American was feeling the crunch... but what could we do about that? Surveillance camera's were going up everywhere even without demand from Big Brother Bush and stories of wiretapping seemed par for the course. And even though habeus corpus was being effectively suspended, most of us were still getting due process regarding the growing prison-industrial complex. These policies were thoroughly unAmerican, and blatant abuses of our disappearing rights, but what could anyone really do? These things were just happening and most Americans simply can't afford to spend their work days getting involved with the ACLU. Still, we knew something was going terribly wrong in the country. We just didn't have the focus or the network to stand up and do something about it.

We had some informed skepticism about the reasons for the war and, while millions futilely tried, we couldn't stop the war. When our brothers, sisters, and friends were sent to Iraq, how could we know what they would be asked to do? It's bad enough that thousands of our loved ones are still coming back in flag draped coffins (hidden from the camera by the administration), but did anyone really believe that those young soldiers in the pictures at Abu Ghraib took it upon themselves to torture and humiliate those Iraqi prisoners? Bush has now admitted to authorizing torture, but who could effectively put the obvious together and throw the sadist out of office?

Enter Scott McClellan. The Bushites didn't realize that they had someone with a conscience amongst them. We know now that McClellan must have been aghast at the policymaking he was privy to. But what could he do? He bided his time, received his honorable discharge, and now he's bringing down the whole administration. But he's not doing it alone. The American people are with him. Many congresspeople are with him. And those that are not offended by Bush haven't a leg to stand on. Who really wants to defend the indefensible? Even if they're psychopaths they won't want to blow their cover in prime time. And the literal primetime pundits are, in fact, starting to call for impeachment. When the corporate journalists turns on power (and do what real journalists are supposed to do), that power is in trouble. The Bush Administration is in trouble.

Mr. McClellan isn't doing all the work, nor is he spilling all the beans, but his effort is just enough to empower all of the others who have been working on impeachment. Millions of Americans are about to witness an act of national justice and Scott McClellan is largely to thank. But we still need the Wexlers and the Kucinichs and the Naders. We still need journalists who are prepared to get the whole story and who are willing to fearlessly present it in it's entirety. And we, the people of the U.S.A,. need to collectively stand up for our rights and for justice. Impeachment needs to be demanded by every citizen with a conscience, a soul, or a mouth.

this vampiric regime must not be allowed to escape, now is the time to drive the stake in. Expose this regime to the light of day (the impeachment process) and watch it turn to dust. But all the players and the American public must act and demand action now! As David Swanson recently wrote: "... if we get to impeachment, we will get to indictment for certain. If we don't get to impeachment, Bush and Cheney's strongest defense in court will be to argue that they were never impeached." That must not happen. Bush and Cheney must be impeached and then tried for war crimes in an international court.

Scott McClellan and the Impetus for Impeachment

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:34:00 +0000

This is it. If congress does not act on the widespread calls for impeachment now, after the revelations of this former administration insider, we will know, definitively, that they are not beholden to the will of the public whom they claim to represent. Scott McClellan's personal confession & sacrifice, along with his expose of the Bush White House, make this the time for justice. Will the American people and the people of the world finally see the ideals of truth and justice upheld?

McClellan has done what many have only dreamt about... he has gotten close enough to power to actually make it accountable. He came to Washington D.C. with President George W. Bush from Texas and had a front row seat for years to his former boss's less-than scrupulous policy-making process. For ten years he was an insider (as described in his landmark book of memoirs "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception") but being that close to power obviously didn't corrupt him enough. He confesses, in a very forgivable manner, "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be." But, upon resigning from his role as Press Secretary, the President had this to say about him, "He handled his assignments with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country. It's going to be hard to replace Scott." That was perhaps the most truthful statement Bush has ever made, and more true than he'd like it to be.

Much of the content in McClellan's book is not presented and a new revelation but, rather, it is presented anew by an eye witness to the policy making process -- and that's what makes it so powerful. From Bush's quasi-denial of cocaine use, to the outing of CIA operative (Valerie Plame Wilson) for political reasons, and finally the deception used to sell the American public on an unjust and evermore tragic war, McClellan breaks it all down and presents it for what it really is, the politics of power and corruption. All the pieces of the puzzle are clearly laid out so that even the corporate media makers (whom he generously labels "complicit enablers") won't be able to deny the harsh reality that is presented with first-hand knowledge.

And the weak-willed Democrats in congress may finally be able, or forced, to put impeachment on the table as requested by congressman John Conyers (D-MI). McClellans book is pure political gold and his media tour is a tour-de-force. Now, while the iron is hot, is the time to demand the impeachment process be started.

Impeachment is absolutely necessary for the most critical reasons. The state of the nation and the state of the world have been turned into a state of turmoil like never before in history -- and those responsible MUST be held accountable in the most formal and official manner. As the world community becomes increasingly globalized our fates become more intertwined, tolerated injustices eventually become injustices perpetuated upon all. Having been stained by the actions of the Bush administration, the people of the U.S. and the congress that is supposed to represent them must completely repudiate the policies of the Bush administration for their own sakes, for sake of the nation, and for the sake of the world. Mild criticism and censure are not enough if we want to right the ship and change the course of history that we have been set upon. Impeachment will serve as a mandate for peace and freedom around the world.

Consequently, it is not too late for this action. Even if Bush is impeached upon his last day in office, the message will have been sent and justice will have been served.

I, like Scott McClellan, had been a relatively silent observer of the tragic injustices perpetuated by the Bush regime, but now is the time for action. If our politicians have an ounce of honor or integrity left, impeaching Bush is their duty and the chorus of the public must not let up until they do so. If Clinton could be impeached for his perjurous lying and questionable ethics, Bush and his administration are worthy of a war crimes tribunal. But one thing at a time...

My Letter To Chomsky

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:05:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian Power Grab Debacle

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:04:00 +0000

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

Oh no! It just occurred to me...

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:00:00 +0000

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

9/11 Reality (Conspiracy THEORY Unnecessary)

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:55:00 +0000

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

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

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

Check the facts for yourself...
cooperativeresearch.org

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

noreply@blogger.com (N. Zero) — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:52:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here's the idea... If you (or persons you care about) are interested in protesting against the war and the police state, please repost this message in it's entirety. I will add the article about the undercover police "protesters" at the end of this bulletin and I ask you, as a personal favor, to copy and post this whole message (in it's entirety) as a reposted bulletin. I'll consider a personal favor and a step towards building a stronger community of activists on myspace.
Sincerely,
nihilo0

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/28/SURVEILLANCE.TMP&type=printable