Capitalism ≠ Anarchism

In recent years a ridiculous notion has been promoted in the United States. It's the idea that the philosophy of anarchism is compatible with the principles of capitalism. Proponents of this proposed ideological merger call themselves anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, or agorists. And while anarchists around the globe may not believe in the seriousness of those proposing the merger of these philosophies, I remind them that the proponents we are talking about are primarily people within the borders of the United States of America. This is the same land that has also concocted the notion of “national anarchism” which promotes racial segregation. These are concepts from “the land of the free” – where more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per capita) than in any other nation. So, as absurd as it is, I assure you that the idea of “anarcho-capitalism” is a real thing.

Sexual Politics: Obfuscated and Dismissed (A Follow-Up)

It turns out that my article about sexuality was not well-received. To some extent this was expected. And I knew it would be criticized by those on all sides with a position about sexuality. I was hoping it would also spur some constructive dialogue, but this wasn't really the case. Instead, the article was criticized for reasons I wouldn't have expected. Both the proponents of “men's rights,” and one apparent feminist, offered criticism that really didn't address the underlying points I was trying to make in the article.

Don't Go?! Get Real.

The Mifflin Street Block Party has become a right of passage for many students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Think what you may of it, it's a persistent event and has proceeded annually on the first Saturday in May since the 1960's. Although attempts have been made by the city and business interests to co-opt it, it will continue to take place with or without sanction.

The party had its origins in the sixties as an anti-war protest against the school's complicity with the military-industrial complex -- particularly in regard to the Dow Chemical corporation which was recruiting students to make napalm and agent orange. Additionally, the event became a dance party in the streets to show solidarity with the rebellion in France in '68. Police responded violently to the party, as is their wont, and the students fought back. This is undoubtedly part of the reason why Madison earned the reputation as being the "Berkeley of the midwest." 

As the party continued to manifest annually, thanks to the rebellious spirit of youthful students, it continued to have political messages tied with it. For example, in 1984, a commemorative t-shirt design was opposed to U.S. involvement with Nicaragua. And, of course, this was fitting for an event such as this one in a progressive city such as Madison. 

However, over the years, the authorities have attempted to co-opt the party. The city has given tenuous approval (of an event it couldn't stop) and businesses have been allowed to set up stages and push corporate booze. It might even be argued that the city and the university has encouraged drunkenness and apolitical revelry at this event. This is effectively what has happened (by design or not).

Trust and Relationships

Our willingness to express our hopes and fears is matched by the proportional likelihood that we will be manipulated and exploited accordingly.  This isn't to say specifically how often the latter will happen when we open up, but people are undoubtedly manipulated along these lines by those they've trusted.  The breakdown of the family in modern America suggests a limitation of unconditional love and almost everyone has witnessed basic betrayals of trust.  Many of us have, consequently, become more guarded when establishing relationships.  Our subsequent lack of openness further impedes our ability to form various forms of relationships and this, in turn, creates a negative feedback loop based upon the fact that we know information is being withheld from us -- which causes us to be more suspicious of others and, therefore, emotionally guarded and distant.  
Politically, when the realities of surveillance and opportunistic maliciousness are added, issues of trust and healthy relationships are complicated further.  We have a difficult time simply establishing basic personal relationships, but establishing trusted political alliances can be far more daunting.  It's possible to get lucky in terms of love or affinity groups, but it would be better if luck were less of a necessary factor in these regards.

The Politics of Internet Censorship: A Technological Critique

First of all, I just want to point out that the recent protests and other actions in relation to the issue of SOPA/PIPA (bolstered by varying degrees of blackouts on websites like Reddit, Wikipedia, and Google) quite likely amounted to the most politically active day in the history of the world -- in terms of people discussing legislation, issues of free speech, and governmental corruption. Furthermore, we are quite likely to see evermore people championing the cause of free speech (and challenging legal restrictions upon it through loopholes like copyright and trademark). These are very hopeful developments.

However, what I find particularly noteworthy is the kind of information that the government is looking to restrict... namely, access to art. On it's face, there are specious arguments about protecting artists and the profits of the movie and recording industry. These arguments have already been thoroughly dismantled by others -- in terms of artists thriving because of their works being spread and because artists created and thrived before any copyright laws existed. But the underlying issue isn't really about protecting artists -- or even corporatized industries profiting off of them. Rather, I feel, the issue is about the plain censorship of political dissent.

There is a difference between a declaration of martial law and a draconian crackdown...

I would like to challenge everyone to examine more closely what martial law actually is, and then... consider what has effectively been declared with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 -- especially when taken together with previous legislation like the Patriot Act.  I won't condescend to explain here what the NDAA or the Patriot Act is (follow the links), but I'd really like people to take a moment for consideration about the implications of this growing body of overtly authoritarian, and even totalitarian, legislation.  While most cities and towns don't have tanks rolling through their streets every day, and while curfews are rare, I'd suggest that there are more subtle factors to martial law than these things.  Additionally, while a widespread crackdown and purge of assorted "radicals" hasn't occurred yet, I'd like to point out that the legislation in question allows, and paves the way, for precisely that.  This legislation is, effectively, a declaration of Martial law by the U.S. government.  While arguably few people have been subjected to the worst effects of this legislation, the declaration has been made and many people are, basically and technically, existing in violation of current U.S. law.  If you are living within the borders of the United States of America, you are living under martial law at this very moment. 

Finally, while I don't want to argue too much about definitions... the U.S. has more prisoners per capita (and in total numbers) than any other nation on Earth.  Wiretapping and other broad surveillance measures have been codified by the state.  American citizens can now be arrested by the military, detained, and imprisoned indefinitely without the right to a trial.  All of this amounts to the very definition of a totalitarian police state.

Important Dates in 2012 for Anarchists, The 99% & Social Justice Advocates

After the rise of the #OCCUPYWALLSTREET movement, on top of various revolutions and insurrections around the world in 2011, I expect that 2012 will likely see more of the same along these lines.  Of course, this will also be in the context of more draconian policies which target dissent amidst a crumbling economic and environmental infrastructure.  Some people will, undoubtedly, try to preserve and maintain the status quo while blaming the victims for resisting (or for even just simply pointing out the injustices of this world).  Nevertheless, I've got a feeling that this coming year might possibly see unprecedented protests around the globe.  As late as the proverbial hour is getting for the dominant culture... people may simply never have this type of opportunity to protest again.  That may sound like an exaggeration, but I wouldn't underestimate the power and ruthlessness of those currently in charge of this system.  Who can guess the horrific depths to which they will sink to maintain their power?     

That said, despite the risks, I reiterate my hunch that 2012 will be a year of significant and unprecedented protests.  Particularly, in English speaking countries, a few specific events might attract large numbers of people demonstrating in favor of social, economic, and environmental justice.  Again... these will simply be building off of recent actions and will be driven by an evermore desperate and diverse cross-section of society (with less to lose each passing day).  The simple reality is that environmental degradation continues to snowball while resource depletion spurs war, famine, and economic instability.      

So, without further ado, these are the particular events which I predict will see large protests in the face of violent and corrupt power...

Even if you are not an anarchist...

(I probably won't write too much more about Reddit on my blog, and I'm sorry if it seems like I've been focusing too much lately on the subject of internet communications, but this is something I wrote in an attempt to help establish a more open and accountable subreddit for people interested in ideas about anarchism.  If you don't already have one... I hope you'll consider opening a Reddit account if only to subscribe to this forum.)  

This post is about intellectual honesty. As some of you may know, there has been a great amount of dissatisfaction with the style of moderation displayed in the r/anarchism subreddit. This has been a simmering issue for several months. Unfortunately, up til now, there has been little that could be done about it since r/anarchism associates itself with the basic name of the philosophy (even though, at best, it only partially promotes that philosophy). More to the point... the moderators are widely panned as hardly being anarchists at all. They ban sincere anarchists at a whim, they invite trolls from other subreddits by harassing those forums, and their primary method of communication consists largely of logical fallacy and obfuscation. In short... they are helping to give anarchism a bad name. Perhaps that's by design, perhaps it's due to a collection of personality disorders, but the bottom line is that the philosophy of Anarchism -- in it's historical & contemporary forms -- is not adequately presented on Reddit.

Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the Middle Eastern Uprisings

In an article I wrote last December, before the uprisings began in the Mid-East, I speculated that the revelations of the diplomatic cables (released by Wikileaks) might spur uprisings in that region.  I know of no one else who was publicly speculating along those lines at the time.

Since then, the Middle-Eastern uprisings have come to pass and continue to sweep through the region... and Julian Assange himself, along with Amnesty International, has credited the Cablegate leaks with spurring the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and beyond.  So... please forgive me if I once again draw attention to my earlier speculation (now that its prescience has been proven and its subject has been accepted as a factor, in hindsight, by reputable parties).  I am not a paid analyst.  No publication has offered me any sort of a contract or given me any pay -- I don't even receive uncompensated editorial offers. And, so, please forgive me if I sometimes feel a bit obliged to draw attention to my own marginal writings.  I don't pretend that everything comes to pass just as I call it, but I'm pretty close sometimes -- and I think my analysis is at least as worthy as anything you might get from the talking heads on cable news.

Anyway... below is a video in which Julian Assange credits Wikileaks for playing a major role in the Middle Eastern uprisings and, below that, you will also see another interesting interview with Assange.  Wikileaks continues to be of profound importance, with repercussions yet to revealed.  I think both of the following videos are quite important if you really wish to understand the machinations of current geo-political events.

Some quick notes...

A lot of nothing has been happening lately in my personal life and... I must admit that I'm simply not very inspired to write or do much. I've had some ideas for articles and some other projects... but a lot of them seem a bit hackneyed -- and I'm not sure when I'll get around to putting out some more original content again. Basically, for what it's worth, I'm in a rut. And I find it difficult to continuously analyze the news or participate in any half-assed social movements. So... I'll probably continue taking a break from the world of analysis -- it hasn't seemed to do anyone much good anyway.

I did want to write this bit here today simply to... get some things off my chest. First of all... I stand by my last article -- I think the aftermath of the Japanese Tsunami will have very harsh economic repercussions for the the rest of the world (in addition to the immediate wake of the disaster in Japan itself). But I want to make it clear that this disaster was merely something that added strain to a system that was already disastrously collapsing. The dominant economic system, and all that it implies, is fundamentally unstable. Myself and others have tried to show the facts behind this again and again -- so I won't get into that.

Secondly... today I saw more recent video examples of police brutality -- a man being dragged from a wheelchair who was in no position to harm the police, and a woman who was basically an innocent bystander who had her teeth knocked out (the police report said she stumbled). I see a lot of such videos on a daily basis and I really just can't comprehend how this is tolerated in any society -- especially one that is supposed to value freedom. All sorts of people from every element of society get caught up and brutalized by this violent system of police repression and I just can't understand how it is allowed to persist. It's a sad disgusting phenomena and it's one of those things that makes me persistently cynical about any hopes for modern society.

Anyway... that's about all. Maybe I'll write something else in a week or a month or a year. Just wanted to get this out there and let people know where I'm at with this blog and everything else.

Cheers.

It was dehumanizing... completely.

An Aging Radical on Race and Politics

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.

Be Prepared for Police Violence at the RNC Protest

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

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.

Scott McClellan and the Impetus for Impeachment

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/OAKLAND-Police-spies-chosen-to-lead-war-protest-2492271.php



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