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.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Spoiler Alert! The Dark Knight is an Unmasked Bush Apologist
Let me begin by saying that I am not a Batman fan. I think he is corporate criminal who focuses on street crime while Bruce Wayne's "Wayne Enterprises" acts as an international hi-tech arms dealer. As presented In various forms of the media (comic books, cartoons, and movies), Wayne's conglomerate is involved in many questionable industrial enterprises -- from petroleum extraction and chemical processing to bio-tech and corporate control of the media (through his ownership of the Daily Planet from Superman fame). So while I am in awe of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the same way that I am in awe of Rupert Murdoch or Dick Cheney, I am not a fan of the character and do not see him as a hero.
This current movie goes to new lows for Batman, but before we get to the current movie... first let's look at some of his more well known foes from previous movies. The Poison Ivy character, best known from the 1997 movie Batman & Robin, is an overt environmentalist (albeit a misanthropic one) who overtly and directly accuses Wayne Enterprises of environmental crimes as the motivation for her hostilities. Bruce Wayne quickly produces some greenwashing to his millionaire friends as a response to show her up. In the more recent Batman Begins (2005) the chief protagonist is a militant environmentalist (albeit a misanthropic one) in Ra's al Ghul. Both times, the environmentalist villains are handily dispatched by the billionaire corporatist Bruce Wayne in the form of his technologically enabled alter ego. I could go on with other villains created or motivated by Wayne Industry's indiscretions, but you get the idea.
In this latest film (in theaters now -- you should sneak in like I did) Batman's foe, The Joker (quite adequately portrayed by the late Heath Ledger), speaks the language of anarchy quite overtly (albeit maniacally and with no ethics or morality) and even goes so far as to burn hundreds of millions of dollars as a subtle means to contrast himself with the uber-capitalist Bruce Wayne. Who will emerge victorious is obviously not in doubt -- the billionaire or the crazy anarchist trying to bring down the system of subtle exploitation and control.
Now admittedly, the Batman stories have always readily portrayed the corruption of the police. And while this adds a bit of realism to the fictitious universe, the corrupt cops always end up getting punished and the "honorable" Commissioner Gordon always does what the state would have him do without being bribed by other organizations (that would pay him more for similar activities). He may be getting some kickbacks from Wayne Enterprises, but that's mostly speculation. The point is... the villains are always portrayed in simplistic black & white terms -- and the "good" guys always win.
Even in this latest movie Bruce Wayne engages in most questionable activities, but it's all presented as justified and is always successful. Torture, for example, works for Batman and he readily employs it as a dependable tactic. Anyone who studies the subject should know however that torture rarely works and is often simply used to add injury to incarceration (ala Guantanamo Bay). The main reason it works in this latest movie is because the Joker enjoys being tortured and was planning on giving up the information anyway. Yep... the crazy anarchist enjoys being tortured. That does not bode well in the actual world for political prisoners of would-be interrogators who can't tell the difference between reality and fiction.
In terms of privacy... Batman uses his supercomputer to make every cell-phone in the city an active microphone which can not only listen in on and analyze all conversations, it can also make live visual images of all activities in range of a cell-phone. That's right... the corporate super-"hero" is actually Big Brother -- and it's justified since The Joker just has to be caught after all and this is obviously the only way.
Finally, a hero that the Bush administration can relate to -- Jack Bauer eat your heart out. It's disgusting. Of course, in the movies and comic books, Batman causes a minimal amount of "collateral damage," unlike the real world "heroes" of the USA.
So I ask, do we really need another shallow apologist for the backwards policies of the Bush administration? He may be fictional, but Bruce Wayne/Batman is also quite popular -- especially with the young. I suggest we try to find some real heroes and make sure that this Batman character is revealed for the oligarchic fascist he is.
digg story
This current movie goes to new lows for Batman, but before we get to the current movie... first let's look at some of his more well known foes from previous movies. The Poison Ivy character, best known from the 1997 movie Batman & Robin, is an overt environmentalist (albeit a misanthropic one) who overtly and directly accuses Wayne Enterprises of environmental crimes as the motivation for her hostilities. Bruce Wayne quickly produces some greenwashing to his millionaire friends as a response to show her up. In the more recent Batman Begins (2005) the chief protagonist is a militant environmentalist (albeit a misanthropic one) in Ra's al Ghul. Both times, the environmentalist villains are handily dispatched by the billionaire corporatist Bruce Wayne in the form of his technologically enabled alter ego. I could go on with other villains created or motivated by Wayne Industry's indiscretions, but you get the idea.
In this latest film (in theaters now -- you should sneak in like I did) Batman's foe, The Joker (quite adequately portrayed by the late Heath Ledger), speaks the language of anarchy quite overtly (albeit maniacally and with no ethics or morality) and even goes so far as to burn hundreds of millions of dollars as a subtle means to contrast himself with the uber-capitalist Bruce Wayne. Who will emerge victorious is obviously not in doubt -- the billionaire or the crazy anarchist trying to bring down the system of subtle exploitation and control.
Now admittedly, the Batman stories have always readily portrayed the corruption of the police. And while this adds a bit of realism to the fictitious universe, the corrupt cops always end up getting punished and the "honorable" Commissioner Gordon always does what the state would have him do without being bribed by other organizations (that would pay him more for similar activities). He may be getting some kickbacks from Wayne Enterprises, but that's mostly speculation. The point is... the villains are always portrayed in simplistic black & white terms -- and the "good" guys always win.
Even in this latest movie Bruce Wayne engages in most questionable activities, but it's all presented as justified and is always successful. Torture, for example, works for Batman and he readily employs it as a dependable tactic. Anyone who studies the subject should know however that torture rarely works and is often simply used to add injury to incarceration (ala Guantanamo Bay). The main reason it works in this latest movie is because the Joker enjoys being tortured and was planning on giving up the information anyway. Yep... the crazy anarchist enjoys being tortured. That does not bode well in the actual world for political prisoners of would-be interrogators who can't tell the difference between reality and fiction.
In terms of privacy... Batman uses his supercomputer to make every cell-phone in the city an active microphone which can not only listen in on and analyze all conversations, it can also make live visual images of all activities in range of a cell-phone. That's right... the corporate super-"hero" is actually Big Brother -- and it's justified since The Joker just has to be caught after all and this is obviously the only way.
Finally, a hero that the Bush administration can relate to -- Jack Bauer eat your heart out. It's disgusting. Of course, in the movies and comic books, Batman causes a minimal amount of "collateral damage," unlike the real world "heroes" of the USA.
So I ask, do we really need another shallow apologist for the backwards policies of the Bush administration? He may be fictional, but Bruce Wayne/Batman is also quite popular -- especially with the young. I suggest we try to find some real heroes and make sure that this Batman character is revealed for the oligarchic fascist he is.
digg story
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
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).
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
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
Friday, June 06, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Impeachment of Bush is Imminent, Just in Time
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
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...
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...
Friday, August 11, 2006
My Letter To Chomsky
The following letter was originally submitted to Noam Chomsky's MySpace page (yes, he has a fanclub) and then forwarded to his MIT email address. I'm posting it here because I thought a few of you might be interested in leaving some comments about it.
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)?
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
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.
Foremostly, it must be understood that the developing crisis in Iran is almost wholly about literal power -- energy in the form of petroleum oil. The group threatening Iran is based in, and holds control over, the United States of America. Petro-chemicals are the leading export of this nation. The USA gathers petroleum from around the world and processes it into fuel, agricultural chemicals, plastics, and other products which it makes use of domestically and exports internationally. The US is literally covered in roads made of petroleum derived asphalt. Every sector of this wealthiest nations economy is linked to petroleum -- from agriculture to transportation to the whole military-industrial complex. Every severe economic crisis of 20th century America was preceded by a sharp increase in the price of petroleum. Petroleum is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy and the bloodlust for it is evermore insatiable. The underlying importance of this paragraph is in the fact that that the nation of Iran has the second largest proven petroleum reserves within its borders. For the power elites in America to maintain their economic and military supremacy they must control that petroleum.
To a lesser extent the invasion of Iran will be about military power -- the power of nuclear missiles in particular. Should the military of Iran ever develop nuclear strike capability, that would effectively deter any invasion (and the subsequent loss of control over the Iranian oil by the Iranian power elites). Furthermore, a brutal and ruthless display of American military strength (that could make the war in Iraq look like the 4th of July) would deter the power elites in every other nation from developing nuclear weapons in particular and, in general, from challenging US supremacy at all anywhere.
This is about the long-term control over the resources and people around the globe. It is possible that the sudden consequences of peak oil and the new technologies enabling easier nuclear proliferation have caught the power elites off guard to some degree -- but you can be certain that they are now fully aware of these implications and are more than prepared for a brazen power grab. A ground war in Iraq was planned long before the 9/11 attacks and that nation had been softened up by bombings for a decade beforehand (reiterated in case anyone failed to notice). Elsewhere in the middle-east historic plans by the American power elite to control the regions petroleum reserves have met with mixed results -- relative success with the royalty in Saudi Arabia and... with pointed failure in their support of the Shah in Iran. Suffice it to say that the existence and usefulness of petroleum in the mid-east isn't news -- nor is political intrigue or military action to control it. In WW2 there was talk about dropping an A-bomb over what is now Saudi Arabia to prevent Nazi's from getting control over the region's resources -- that didn't prove especially necessary or feasible but the topic came up nevertheless and persists as a potentially feasible strategy.
So let us now consider the current situation in Iran... What wouldn't the ruling class in America do to control the region and resources of Iran? Would they kill a million Iranians? How about ten million or more? From the pre-american aboriginals to the middle passage to WW2 and Vietnam, such numbers are hardly unprecedented and the sophistication of military technology is far more advanced now. There has even been relatively candid talk of using "bunker buster" nuclear weapons in Iran and keeping the option to use nukes "on the table," to quote US President George W. Bush.
Anyone willing to dismiss this nuclear sabre-rattling as an idle threat might be in for an unpleasant surprise to their wishful thinking. Why wouldn't they do it? A large portion of the US population seems to be under the sway of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh -- and many of the rest would be ready to tow the patriotic line in the event of another 9/11-type Reichstag fire. Can't you just here the people talking over the water coolers and in the soup lines: "They only used small tacticular newkler boms and Al Kider IS based in Iran (probably were they'll find Osama)" As for the rest who might still be appalled by the use of nuclear weapons -- they will be marginalized, belittled, harassed and, if necessary, rounded up.
(That's just what fascistic regimes end up doing.) Around the world other populations will be outraged and may even want to boycott American products -- but so what? American corporations sell advanced and essential products directly to other governments and multi-national corporations which need those products to control and feed their populations. And any serious uprising which threatens US business interests could meet the same fate as the Iraqis & Iranians -- many people will continue to just stay in line and out of trouble.
In the final analysis... a serious attack on Iran will destabilize the security of the world. Russia and China will seize the opportunity to deal harshly with Chechnya and Taiwan, Japan will strengthen it's push for nuclear armaments, and India and Pakistan will move closer to full-scale nuclear war. The genocidal war in Africa will continue to rage out of control and a myriad of other conflicts around the world will erupt. Ecocide and the effects of global warming will continue but... The powers that be will control what's left of the precious petroleum oil and they will use it to continue their domination for decades until, finally, one day, techno-industrial civilization violently and completely collapses.
Oh no! It just occurred to me...
The coming presidential campaigns are really going to be a boorish drag. Bush will be out but another fascist will undoubtedly take his place. Presidential politics in this country are the best example of the old "good cop/bad cop" routine -- whoever it is that takes office will most assuredly not be representing the best interests of the masses. It's looking like Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the leading democratic candidate and, seeing as how she is the most pro-war senator, she'll probably win (and the left will be magically pacified). It's disgusting. And then, for you naive idealists... let's suppose a semi-righteous candidate like Nader or Kucinich somehow gets elected. Fat chance, I know, but humor me for a moment. If they really did take the necessary measures to turn this country of theirs around, it would destroy the economy and then there would be a fierce backlash making things worse than ever. If you regulate polluting industries and take efforts to stop car culture, not to mention if you cut back on military spending, the American economy would go into shock and the the environmentalists would take the blame. Similarly... if there is another 9/11 type attack they would be blamed for being to soft of defense and that sentiment would usher in an even more draconian era. Anyway... what people need to accept is that an economic shock is going to be necessary to turn things like global warming around (if that is even still possible). I don't think most of us are ready for this reality. Nevertheless, it's probably better if the collapse happens sooner rather than later so that the destruction will stop and the healing can begin (if that's possible).
9/11 Reality (Conspiracy THEORY Unnecessary)
Porter Goss, former congressman who co-chaired the 9/11 Investigative Committee and current head of the CIA (appointed by President George W. Bush), was at a meeting with the General Ahmoud Ahmad -- head of Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) -- on the morning of September 11th, 2001 when two hijacked jets rammed into the World Trade Center. The ISI is known to have supported both the Taliban & Al Queda. General Ahmad had ties to Osama bin Laden and is thought to have personally approved a $100,000 wire transfer to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.
Bush's father, former President (and ex-head of the CIA) George H.W. Bush, spent the night at the White House and had breakfast with Osama bin Laden's brother Shafiq on the morning of 9/11. Shafiq was in town to be the special guest at the Annual Carlyle Investor's meeting. On the morning of 9.11.01, at the Ritz/Carlton Hotel in D.C., Shafiq attended the meeting with former defense secretaries Frank Carlucci (also a former CIA director) and James Baker III. Both the Bush's and the bin Laden's were heavily invested in Carlyle (the $18 Billion investment group known as the "ex-presidents club") which made large private profits thanks to the warring aftermath of 9/11. Among other world leaders present the Annual Carlyle Investor's Meeting were former British Prime Minister John Major and former treasurer of the World Bank Afsaneh Beschloss. Also worth noting is the fact that the current President Bush's first business partner, at Arbusto Energy Inc., was Salem bin Laden (another of Osama's brothers).
Perhaps it's cynical to think that the world's power elite could be complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in order to consolidate even more power and wealth. And forget the Reichstag fire -- the most obvious answer couldn't be the correct one, could it? On the other hand, some believe the world's governments have been involved with much worse. In any case, the corporate media's position on 9/11 is also the position of the power elite.
Check the facts for yourself...
cooperativeresearch.org
Update: March 20, 2013 -- I've written a clarification of this old ham-fisted article (which was originally a Myspace post) for the purposes of clarifying my current thoughts about the events of September 11th, 2001. 9/11 Conspiracies: For The Sake Of Full Disclosure
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
Update: March 20, 2013 -- I've written a clarification of this old ham-fisted article (which was originally a Myspace post) for the purposes of clarifying my current thoughts about the events of September 11th, 2001. 9/11 Conspiracies: For The Sake Of Full Disclosure
Why I keep posting about undercover police leading anti-war protests
Why I keep posting about the undercover police leading protest marches...
Firstly... I think it's a buried story of great importance (reposted again at the end of this analysis) that everyone should see.
Secondly... I want to remind people that their "friends" on myspace are not necessarily their friends. Even the tamest of activists might consider taking some measures of security culture to ensure that they aren't dealing with infiltrating agent provocateurs. If you check one of my older blogs you might see more about this.
Anyway, beyond the Orwellian nature of this police tactic (but somewhat related), I have a little conspiracy theory of my own about 9/11 conspiracy nuts...
While some of them may be good-hearted simpletons with good intentions, I think they may fall victim to some of those who must realize how ridiculous some of their own outrageous claims actually are. Then, when they tie their despicable and disgusting conspiratorial lies to something like the anti-war movement (or basic civil liberties issues) these causes are tied together with the disreputable 9/11 conspiracy nuts. And then the outrageous conspiracies make the plausible connections to governmental misdeeds seem over the top as well.
Furthermore, and here is where I might get a little out there myself... I wouldn't be surprised if these conspiracy wingnuts are actually trying to make connections and earn trust within other anti-governmental liberation movements. I guess I am just reiterating that point but it HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST (see the vids on my page) and you can be sure the government is using deep cover agents who are willing to risk life and limb to destroy current liberation movements. I think the expose about the undercover cops leading protest marches demonstates this reality quite well.
So here's the idea... If you (or persons you care about) are interested in protesting against the war and the police state, please repost this message in it's entirety. I will add the article about the undercover police "protesters" at the end of this bulletin and I ask you, as a personal favor, to copy and post this whole message (in it's entirety) as a reposted bulletin. I'll consider a personal favor and a step towards building a stronger community of activists on myspace.
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
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
Analysis of the Katrina Disaster (for posterity)
Thursday, September 08, 2005
The mess created by Katrina could be the worst environmental catastrophe since the first Gulf War or Chernobyl. Of course Katrina may have been stronger because of global warming which is also an obvious environmental catastrophe. Hurricane Katrina may prove to be only setting the stage for bigger storms to come.
In regards to the political aspects of this disaster... Politicians from both parties and at all levels of government have failed the people of New Orleans. The poor people without resources should have been bused out on the governments dime and the evacuations centers should have been stocked with food and water (that's not such a radical idea is it?). After the storm hit and the levee broke looting should have been completely overlooked because billions were going to be lost anyway and saving lives should have been made the priority -- the governor however ordered the opposite values to be upheld. Despicable.
FEMA head Brown flippantly wrote off many of the abondoned people by suggesting that they just should have heeded the evacuation order. President Bush later complimented him (and he'll probably even get some sort of commendation). For his part, before going to the diaster area, Bush went ahead to a fund raiser where he played guitar and spoke of other things as New Orleans drowned. Respect him, he is your fearless leader (evil chicken-hawk moron). Now he is going to investigate his own mishandling of this situation... I wonder if he'll discover his own ineptitude.
For her part, in the wake of this disaster, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice went shopping and then to the Monty Python Play "Spamalot" where she was booed afterwards. Her role may serve to quell the idea that race played a factor in the neglect of the victims in NOLA, and this may hold some truth, but just because this callous bitch is black doesn't mean she can't dislike black people.
And if you want to question the idea of institutional racism in Amerika you might want to read a history book or look at the prison-industrial complex (or maybe the social security safety net which many black people pay into but never get old enough to collect) or maybe you should examine the fact that black men are 63 percent less likely than white men to get heart bypass surgery even though they have a higher rate of cardivascular disease.
Back to the subject of NOLA... I wish they would have waited to pump out the toxic water into Lake Ponchartrain until they could have cleansed it at least a little bit. Frankly, I think that New Orleans should have been left as a flooded reminder of man's arrogant attitude towards nature. If they had to, they could rebuild a New New Orleans north of Ponchartrain. Since they aren't... they run the risk of this happening all over again. And what happens if al Queada blows a hole in the levee a few years down the line? As culturally and historically significant as New Orleans has been, it was and will be a disaster waiting to happen.
It's hard to see how anything good will come out of this disaster, but a disaster is what change may have been waiting for. We need a revolution at all levels in this country -- in terms of spirit, values, and ways of life in general. Let's hope Katrina proves to be the impetus for that revolution so that all of those abandoned people will not have died for nothing.
The mess created by Katrina could be the worst environmental catastrophe since the first Gulf War or Chernobyl. Of course Katrina may have been stronger because of global warming which is also an obvious environmental catastrophe. Hurricane Katrina may prove to be only setting the stage for bigger storms to come.
In regards to the political aspects of this disaster... Politicians from both parties and at all levels of government have failed the people of New Orleans. The poor people without resources should have been bused out on the governments dime and the evacuations centers should have been stocked with food and water (that's not such a radical idea is it?). After the storm hit and the levee broke looting should have been completely overlooked because billions were going to be lost anyway and saving lives should have been made the priority -- the governor however ordered the opposite values to be upheld. Despicable.
FEMA head Brown flippantly wrote off many of the abondoned people by suggesting that they just should have heeded the evacuation order. President Bush later complimented him (and he'll probably even get some sort of commendation). For his part, before going to the diaster area, Bush went ahead to a fund raiser where he played guitar and spoke of other things as New Orleans drowned. Respect him, he is your fearless leader (evil chicken-hawk moron). Now he is going to investigate his own mishandling of this situation... I wonder if he'll discover his own ineptitude.
For her part, in the wake of this disaster, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice went shopping and then to the Monty Python Play "Spamalot" where she was booed afterwards. Her role may serve to quell the idea that race played a factor in the neglect of the victims in NOLA, and this may hold some truth, but just because this callous bitch is black doesn't mean she can't dislike black people.
And if you want to question the idea of institutional racism in Amerika you might want to read a history book or look at the prison-industrial complex (or maybe the social security safety net which many black people pay into but never get old enough to collect) or maybe you should examine the fact that black men are 63 percent less likely than white men to get heart bypass surgery even though they have a higher rate of cardivascular disease.
Back to the subject of NOLA... I wish they would have waited to pump out the toxic water into Lake Ponchartrain until they could have cleansed it at least a little bit. Frankly, I think that New Orleans should have been left as a flooded reminder of man's arrogant attitude towards nature. If they had to, they could rebuild a New New Orleans north of Ponchartrain. Since they aren't... they run the risk of this happening all over again. And what happens if al Queada blows a hole in the levee a few years down the line? As culturally and historically significant as New Orleans has been, it was and will be a disaster waiting to happen.
It's hard to see how anything good will come out of this disaster, but a disaster is what change may have been waiting for. We need a revolution at all levels in this country -- in terms of spirit, values, and ways of life in general. Let's hope Katrina proves to be the impetus for that revolution so that all of those abandoned people will not have died for nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)