Nihilo Zero

The Folly of Christopher Hedges

2012-02-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

Often,when describing the inevitable scenes of major protests in the UnitedStates, I evoke the image of a person who has lost a brother in Iraq,a person who has also lost a sister to the trumped up drug war, whosefather had his job outsourced, whose mother had her pension gambledaway by speculators, whose grandmother lost her home of 50 yearsbecause she missed a mortgage payment, and whose grandfather died ofindustrial poisoning and couldn't afford health care. And make nomistake... variants of such individuals readily exist. So when sucha person understandably shows up to protestthe corporate oligarchy at a G8 meeting (or the nationalconventions of the corporate parties), they aren't there to singkumbaya, march along a permitted path, or have their head cracked bythe brutal police. And if they get so angry that they throw a brickthrough a bank window... I will be the last person to condemn them.

I'mnot giving the condescending approval of a social worker whounderstands some flawed psychology behind such actions... I'msuggesting that such rowdiness is perfectly human, rational, and eveninspiring. I'm not suggesting that any particular individual at anyparticular event engage in such actions, but I fully understand someof the motivation behind such actions and wouldn't condemn anindividual engaging in them. And I don't feel that condemnation orfurther punishment of such individuals is beneficial to society. Onthe contrary, such individuals may likely prove to be on the cuttingedge of actual change in this country.

EnterChris Hedges and the privileged leftist elite trying to pacify andreign in the righteous indignation of many abused Americans. As inhis latest article, they primarily prescribe as a method for socialchange... accepting more punishment and self-sacrifice. But that'seasier to suggest for some than others. And why must they so oftenbe quick to condemn those who aren't willing to take anymorepunishment? I'd suggest this reflects a shallow understanding of thetrue pain already administered to so many people and the sacrificesthey've already made.

Sucha stance also often belies a hypocritical stance in regard torevolutionary self-defense and aggression when it occurs in their ownbackyards. For example... Chris Hedges in anearlier article about Greece wrote:

"Here’sto the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage andloot their country. They know what to do when Goldman Sachs andinternational bankers collude with their power elite to falsifyeconomic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economywill collapse. They know what to do when they are told theirpensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks,which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot.Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraidof the language of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, theoligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus theproletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it."

Butwhat has changed now that radicals in Oakland California have calleda general strike, incited to riot, attempted to shut down citycenters, and talked the language of class warfare? Why now condemnthem as "the cancer of the occupy movement," asHedges has done? Why are such actions in the U.S. "a giftfrom heaven to the security and surveillance state,"according to Hedges? To me, such conflicting sentiments smack of thehypocrisy that comes about when one changes their opinions with theshifting of political winds. Hedges is not sticking to hisproverbial guns, he is merely going with the flow to appease theleftist sycophants who comprise his cult of personality. It's sad,disgusting, and shameful.

Inhis recent article, "TheCancer in Occupy," Hedges proceeds to pigeonhole all BlackBloc anarchists in a most inaccurate manner. He claims, forinstance, that Black Bloc adherents do not see corporate capitalistsas the real enemy. This would be laughable if it weren't for thefact that he has such a wide readership that hangs on his every word. Further... he claims that Black Bloc anarchists see radicalintellectuals and environmental activists as the real enemy. I onlywish I could more clearly articulate how absurd this is. It'sreminiscent of the way Trotsky used to slander theMakhnovists in the Russian Revolution. Seriously... this isBolshevik level misinformation that he's offering.

Assupposed proof of his misinformed statements he cites a singlearticle in the defunct Green Anarchy magazine which was somewhatcritical of the Zapatistas. That might be fair if that one articlefrom Green Anarchy surmised the whole of the anarchist position, butit doesn't. Nevermind the fact that the Zapatistas should not bebeyond criticism, it was one article in a publication that presentedan incredible amount of content on a wide range of subjects. To usethis one particular article to discredit the entire movement ofanarchist militancy is, plain and simple, an intellectually dishoneststraw man.

Hedgesthen proceeds with his article to over-associate the anarchist BlackBloc movement with John Zerzan, the editor of Green Anarchy. Hebegins his attempt to discredit Zerzan by bringing up the red herringof Zerzan's defense in regard to "IndustrialSociety and Its Future" by the imprisoned TheodoreKaczynski. He makes no mention of any real nuance in that defense,he doesn't have to, except to say that Zerzan did not endorseKaczynski's bombings. But again, I reiterate, this a red herring. It really has little to do with Zerzan's overall position and doesn'treally speak to the issue at hand -- namely John Zerzan's supposedinfluence in supporting the Black Bloc. He also brings up Zerzan'scriticism of Noam Chomsky, another red herring. All of these thingsamount to an intellectually dishonest sidetrack in Hedges' attempt toundermine and condemn militant anarchism in the United States. Zerzan may be an overly-stoic curmudgeon, but he does not deserve tohave his ideas so poorly represented by Hedges as this latterindividual attempts to demonize something which he obviously does notunderstand. If Hedges wants to have an intellectually honest debatewith Zerzan in an open public forum, I'd bet Zerzan would be willingto oblige him -- but Hedges also knows that his wishy-washy blend ofbland leftist populism has garnered him a much broader platform fromwhich to spread his condemnation of those with a truly deep-seatedradical perspective.

Hedgesconcludes from a faulty interpretation of one single article in GreenAnarchy that, "solidarity becomes the hijacking ordestruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the BlackBloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement." And yet... what exactly is Hedges doing with the very article fromwhich this quote is taken?! As he maligns and slanders strongradical elements within the Occupy movement he is doing the verything which he accuses them of! The absurdity of his blatanthypocrisy is profound.

WhenHedges then presents quotes from a conversation between himself andDerrick Jensen... I frankly have to question his level ofjournalistic integrity. Maybe Jensen said some of the things Hedgesmentions, and maybe even in their full context they express the samethings, but it's not like Jensen is beyond questioning any more thanHedges himself, Chomsky, the Zapatistas, Zerzan, or even myself. Without a deeper and more clear understanding of where thesestatements are coming from... they don't have much weight.

ThenHedges raises the spectre of a "locally owned coffe shop"that had it's windows smashed and contents looted. I have no detailson the veracity of this claim. Maybe it happened, and maybe it waseven done by Black Bloc protesters, but even then it hardly tells memuch about the circumstances. As far as I know this coffee shop mayhave been operated by the KKK or maybe the owners generallymistreated the locals. I really don't know the details of thisparticular incident beyond hearsay. But I do know, from a number ofBlackBloc communiques, that mom & pop shops are never theirprimary targets. And only an infinitesimally small number of blackBloc protesters would ever make such dubious claims along the linesof, "Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyedgets destroyed." Even in the most militant insurrectionaryanarchist tracts of Bonannoor Durrutiyou will not find such sentiments. Perhaps some infiltratingprovocateurs mights suggest otherwise, but it is intellectuallydishonest to paint insurrectionary anarchists as holding thesepositions, or acting upon them, beyond the most uncommon outliers.

Inan attempt to divide by means of identity politics, Hedges proceedswith his drivel to equate the Black Bloc with some ill-defined"hypermasculinity" that is also found in the policeforces or those who engage in imperialistic wars. Whilesimultaneously dismissing the need for anonymity and the solidarityfound in many Black Blocs, Hedges seems to ignore theinvolvement of women with the Black Bloc who organize to resistthe brutality of police forces and imperialistic wars. To associatethe Black Bloc with inchoate masculine rage is largely inaccurateand, therefore, intellectually dishonest.

Next,Hedges presents some logical fallacies which should be transparent toanyone who takes more than a passing moment to consider them. Forexample... he mentions, earlier in his article, various Occupy campswhich were shut down because they were non-violent. Well, this initself should not be seen as a positive in my opinion, but the pointI want to make is that the police violently attacked and shut downthose camps. They did not need the pretense of a real excuse tobrutally attack people. To blame any escalation on those who woulddefend themselves (or counter-attack) ignores the point that thestate will escalate its violence regardless of whether those peopleare there or not -- and if it encounters no real physical resistancethe state will succeed by such means in shutting down the movement. This can be seen again and again, throughout history, as labormovements and civil rights activists did often defend themselves andthe movement with violence. To marginalize the role of those whofought back in so many protest movements is ahistorical.

Ina completely out-of-touch manner, Hedges suggests that chants like“Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away”will alienate people and lose hearts and minds. As if suchsentiments are unpopular to anyone beyond privileged academics andthe petit bourgeois. By marginalizing those who have uttered suchchants, he weakens the movement and the millions of people across thecountry who strongly agree with such sentiments. Even to the extentthat people might burn the American flag... well guess what, thatflag is a symbol of incredible violence and oppression to a greatmany people -- both in the United States and around the world. Hedges may not like it, and it may offend his sensibilities, but anymovement that would marginalize that latter point is a weak one. TheOccupy movement should not be nationalistic and it should notapologize for, or overlook, the brutality of the state's policeforces. As for hearts, minds, and popular opinion... NWA wrote oneof the most popular songs in the history of American music, andit wasn't apologetic or dismissive of police brutality.

Andthen comes what amounts to a confession from Hedges... "Nonviolentmovements, on some level, embrace police brutality." Indeed. Well, he should feel free to embrace that brutality until heends up in the same place that it's put so many other people. Imean... I'm sure that's pretty easy for him to say. He's probablythe first person the police harass and brutalize on any occasion, andI'm sure that police brutality has wrecked his life and destroyed hiscommunity. As if. And like so many other idealistic leftists hetalks about state brutality delegitimizing it's own power and forcinga passive population to respond. But he fails to note that,historically, the effective response from the masses has often beenviolent -- as with the U.S. civil rights movement, and in Indiannationalist movement -- and that violence is what actually promptedthe state to change its ways. I don't mean to totally marginalizemilitant non-violence, it is ideal and effective to a degree, butit's not intellectually honest to overstate its historical role andremove it from the context of broader violent militancy. And, infact, the state loves non-violent militants! That's why people suchas MLK, Gandhi, and even characters like Jesus, are effectivelydeified by the state. The state would rather people forget thedetails about the likes of JohnBrown, EmmaGoldman, or Malcom(Shabazz) X.

Atthis point in Hedges' article, just when I thought it couldn'tpossibly top itself in producing more guffaws, bursts of laughter, oreye-rolls... Hedges criticizes the Black Bloc's supposedly"thought-terminating cliché of diversity of tactics.” My first thought when reading this section was that he must not bevery aware of how that term has often been used in recent Americanprotests. "Diversity of tactics" is not something solelypromoted by Black Bloc protesters and I am actually more familiarwith it being used by other types of protesters, militantlynon-violent protesters, who engage in activities like lock-downs toblock an intersection or to close down a particular corporatebusiness. Therefore, his criticism of this doctrine is potentiallymore impacting to them than anyone else. But this characterizationof "diversity of tactics" as being "thought-terminating"is laughable in itself. What is the alternative? Only one singleaccepted tactic? And, mind you, this critique of diversity oftactics comes only a couple paragraphs before he describes the BlackBloc as bearing "the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutismsects." Talk about the leftist pot calling the anarchistkettle black! Are you kidding me?! Is Hedges being satirical whenwriting all this?! Let me get this straight... according to Hedgesno one in the Occupy movement is to engage in any violence, evenself-defence. Provocative public critiques of the police state aretaboo. Destruction of even corporate property is a no-no. Blockingstreets with garbage or debris is out. Flag burning is unacceptable. And yet... Hedges is the one supposedly condemning dogmatism andabsolutism. Hedges is the one who describes Black Bloc anarchists asbelieving that "they alone understand. They alone arrogatethe right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismissand ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. Theyhear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. Theybelieve only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeplyintolerant but stupid." Really? Who are you describingnow, Mr. Hedges? Everyone may not have went to Ivy League schoolsand didn't always cut their teeth in the corporate press corps, but Ifeel your analysis of Black Bloc anarchists is hollow and petty. Andif you, Christopher Hedges, want to march peacefully in to a chargingphalanx of riot cops, I won't condemn you, demonize you, or try tostop you. You'll have to excuse me if I laugh up my sleeve a bitthough.

Hedgescloses his ridiculous article with another quote from Jensen, perhapsto draw attention away from his own inane sentiments. And if thefollowing really was the gist of Jensen's comments to Hedges then he,too, should be ashamed. In closing, he quotes Jensen as saying thefollowing: “If you live on Ogoni land and you see that KenSaro-Wiwa is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance, if you seethat the land is still being trashed, then you might think aboutescalating. I don’t have a problem with that. But we have to gothrough the process of trying to work with the system and gettingscrewed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can’tshort-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have togo through, as individuals and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey,I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.’” Is Jensen really suggesting that we simply haven't worked with thesystem enough?! Really? Is this the radical Derrick Jensen that somany have come to know and love? Really?! And we haven't observedthe land continuing to be trashed after working with the system? Really? Come on. We still must continue to go through the process oftrying to to work with the system and getting screwed?! This is ajoke, right? I know of no one throwing flower pots at cops simplybecause it's fun. And if DJ is spouting such nonsense at the behestof Chris Hedges... then he has lost his edge and is almost asworthless. Go join the Sierra Club DJ, and Chris... you should stoptrying to stir up infighting amidst theOccupy movement -- you're not helping.

The Politics of Internet Censorship: A Technological Critique

2012-01-27T09:31:00.000-08:00

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

However, what I find particularlynoteworthy is the kind of information that the government is lookingto restrict... namely, access to art. On it's face, there arespecious arguments about protecting artists and the profits of themovie and recording industry. These arguments have already beenthoroughly dismantledby others -- in terms of artists thriving because of their worksbeing spread and because artists created and thrived before anycopyright laws existed. But the underlying issue isn't really aboutprotecting artists -- or even corporatized industries profiting offof them. Rather, I feel, the issue is about the plain censorship ofpolitical dissent.

Art, and particularly pop art, hasoften been used (perhaps counter-intuitively) to draw attention tovarious political movements and ideas. One might very well arguethat putting an artistic work in such political context changes itinto a different and unique form which should be protected regardlessof what the original purpose might have been for the creation of anyparticular piece. Even more fundamental is thequestion of why observing any particular piece of art should berestricted to those who can only pay for access to it. Alongthese lines, powerfully inspirational and uplifting works of artbecome restricted in a historically unique manner according to class.

What is even more noteworthy, in myopinion, is why the government is not attempting to restrict theinformation which could truly be dangerous to humanity. It might beargued that any effort put into restricting access to aJustin Bieber song is effort not being used to prevent the spreadof dangerous technologies. I wouldn't trust the government with theresponsibility to control either, but the fact that it is soaggressively working to stop the spread of art and not, instead,using those same resources to stop the spread of weaponstechnology... is revealing. A lot of resources are being used toprevent poor people from downloading a song or film which may be veryrelevant to their lives, but those resources can not then be used toprevent the spread of information about how to make geneticallyengineered plagues or other dangerous weapons that are becoming moreefficiently manufactured all the time.

Now, I realize it's a slippery slope interms of censorship, but if adangerous weaponized technology could be simply manufactured byusing an innovative new method... I'd be opposed to that method beingbroadly distributed (and quite likely opposed to it being distributedat all). Along these lines, I'd go so far as to say that some ideas,some technological techniques, are potentially not safe in anyone'shands -- much less if it's readily available through some worldwideinformation network. So... when I hear people use the hacker's credothat "information wants to be free," and/or by default thatit "should" be free, I feel that they are not consideringthe truly dangerous potential of certain technological information. Rather, it seems, they are thinking only in terms of art or seeminglyhelpful technological innovation. This could potentially be adangerously naive oversight.

This is where the philosophical rubbegins... and I hope you will hear me out even if you disagree withme -- because these ideas are evermore rare, and are arguablycensored by default due to the nature of the critique they present. This critique is one which is often dismissed out of hand without anyfurther consideration. This critique is, bluntly, a broader critiqueof technology and the technocracy we live in. You can possiblyimagine how such ideas are evermore rare as society becomes moreevermore technologically centered and the means of communication areevermore more centered around advanced technological systems. Thebias against the critique is inherent in the fact that it isexamining our regular personal experience regarding interaction withtechnology. Psychologically, it presents a situation in which wedon't want to acknowledge our own oversights and complicity with aflawed or dangerous idea. So do, please, try to bear with me.

Privately, which is to say off-line, Ipredicted SOPA would fail and not pass. This is largely because I amfamiliar with the ideas of JacquesEllul & HerbertMarcuse. One reason why works of art distributed by computertechnology cannot be easily censored in this modern age is becausethe nature of technology is such that... if art were censored on theinternet then that would lessen people's attraction to the Internetoverall and thus lead to less progress being made on Internetcommunications -- and that, in turn, would hinder the development ofother technological endeavors. It is the underlying and implicitlogic of the technological system which works to prevent theso-called cutting edge from being blunted in any real way.

The nature of the technological systemis to snowball in terms of constantly building upon itself and evenmerging previously unrelated fields. Simultaneously, the mass ofhumanity becomes evermore reliant on the technological systems beingmaintained. For example, geneticengineering and chemistrynow play a huge role in agriculture which previously might have beenunimagined and, at the same time, the masses become evermoredependent upon agriculture. The issue however, the real problem withthis perpetuation, is that technology has started to becomeperpetuated and advanced for it's own sake -- rather than for thesake of humanity. It might even be argued that the reason the humanpopulation has become so large is for the purpose of advancingtechnology. And, thereby, the system we have created has trapped usand is now in control. The bigger problem, ironically, is thatincreasing numbers of technological creations potentially threatenhuman existence.

Not only is humanity threatened bytechnological advancement in very direct ways (both overtly by meansof modern weaponry and more subtly by the accompanying environmentaldegradation), but our psychological bias, and our philosophicalconditioning, readily prevents us from truly acknowledging thesethreats and working to stem their advancement. Furthermore, we failto see the dangers presented by cross-disciplines working together inpreviously unimagined ways. In this manner even seemingly innocuousresearch can often end up working for overtly dangerous technologicaladvancement. Albert Einstein himself is a good example in thisregard because his seemingly benign research could never haveoriginally been predicted to lead us into the dangers of the nuclearage. And yet... that's precisely what use his research was put to. I often find it telling that the most intelligent people in ourmodern technological society are often considered to be the rocketscientists, or nuclear physicists, or genetic engineers. And yet...these are the very people who arguably put us in the most danger as aspecies and actually threaten our continued existence.

Bringing things back to thegovernment's attempts at censoring Internet communications, theseattempts are not necessarily sincere -- although that may seemcounter-intuitive. As politicians in the United States areeffectively technocrats (insomuch as they generally sponsor andpromote technological advancements) this supposed threat to theInternet is actually just another way for them to be rewarded by thesystem which they otherwise incessantly promote. The threat garnersthem more incentives from lobbyists to change their supposedpositions. Or, in terms of the technological system reifying itself,it might be seen that these attempts at hindering Internettechnologies actually produce more staunch proponents of it withinthe broader masses. In either of these potential scenarios thetechnological system actually ends up stronger -- by either rewardingits true proponents, creating a broader base of proponents, or both.

Also possibly counter-intuitive is thefact that the virtual protest, with various sites shutting down orblacking out in some manner, should inspire this critique of the verysystem which the proponents of the protest strongly support. Maybethat's just ironic, but I feel those sites being down naturallyinspires some of us to generally to think more deeply about whatthose sites are for and to what ends they exist.

It should be noted that while theonline protest against censorship was about freedom of speech, butthe threats posed by technology, including computer technologies,threaten a more fundamental freedom -- the freedom to exist. Thatmay sound like hyperbole to those in denial, but much in the processof creating the Internet is environmentally destructive. TheInternet also serves to largely perpetuate broader consumerism and itmakes convenient the development of other technologies withoutdiscretion -- regardless of the dangers they may present. A lot ofthe supposed good enabled by the Internet might be trumped if itfacilitates enough consumeristic destruction or if it enablesdestructive individuals to create highly destructive weapons. (Tothose who still may not acknowledge the environmental devastationbrought about by consumerism, I feel obliged to point out that manyof the materials we use in the modern world are manufactured withtoxic methods, perhaps after some strip-mining, and often end up inthe landfills or thepacific garbage gyre. And, indeed, the power needed tomanufacture and operate many of our devices relies overwhelmingly onfossil fuels or the production of nuclear waste. But even so-called"sustainable" energy sources merely maintain the otherdestructive aspects of the consumeristic process.)

Another possibility to consider is thatconcepts of human freedom have become so seemingly intertwined withthe freedom of technology that a threat to the latter is a threat toboth (at least to some degree in some instances). This might beconsidered a more tech-positive position, on the face of it, but itmight behoove us to look at the further implications of this angle. That is to say... just because we are dependent upon technology doesnot mean that it is developing into areas that truly meet our needs. Some level of technology is undoubtedly needed to maintain thecurrent human population, but to the extent that it subtly andeffectively works to increase our population to unsustainable levels,or to the extent that it presents evermore existential threats, whendo we consider stemming any aspects of technological progress(so-called)? And, if Pandora's box must be closed at all, must itnot realistically be closed completely lest the underlying potentialof disaster remain?

When it comes down to it, we may findthat the net effect of our technological system, generally andoverall, is to our detriment. And, while that presents a dauntingproblem, the bigger risk may not be in the consequences of stemmingtechnological progress (even by what might be deemed censorship insome cases), but, rather, what the final consequences will be if ourtechnological society is allowed to continue in even seemingly benignways. As it is, however, our society continues to stand behindgeneral technological advancement with little real consideration ofthe repercussions. And while we defend our human rights to spreadinformation freely, we are inclined to ignore any negativerepercussions of that process.

I know these ideas will provedistasteful and controversial to some. But I am merely raising theissues and presenting a potential paradox. I am not sure what caneffectively be done in regard to these issues. Any sort of Luddismthese days is largely relegated to sciencefiction or fringeactions which often only deal with one technological aspect. Theroots of any problems humanity may have in connection with atechnological mindset will undoubtedly prove to run deep. In alllikelihood, I expect that the technological system will simply eatitself and some large portion of humanity will go along with it. AndI am not inclined to believe that any of us will necessarily survivelike the characters in some post-apocalyptic film which the movieindustry wants to limit access to.

Nihilo Zero

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

2012-01-04T18:14:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

2011-12-31T11:14:00.000-08:00

After the rise of the #OCCUPYWALLSTREETmovement, on top of various revolutions and insurrections around theworld in 2011, I expect that 2012 will likely see more of the samealong these lines. Of course, this will also be in the contextof more draconian policies which target dissent amidst a crumblingeconomic and environmental infrastructure. Some people will,undoubtedly, try to preserve and maintain the status quo whileblaming the victims for resisting (or for even just simply pointingout the injustices of this world). Nevertheless, I've got afeeling that this coming year might possibly see unprecedentedprotests around the globe. As late as the proverbial hour isgetting for the dominant culture... people may simply never havethis type of opportunity to protest again. That may sound likean exaggeration, but I wouldn't underestimate the power andruthlessness of those currently in charge of this system. Whocan guess the horrific depths to which they will sink to maintaintheir power?

That said, despite therisks, I reiterate my hunch that 2012 will be a year of significantand unprecedented protests. Particularly, in English speaking countries, a few specific events might attract large numbers ofpeople demonstrating in favor of social, economic, and environmentaljustice. Again... these will simply be building off of recentactions and will be driven by an evermore desperate and diversecross-section of society (with less to lose each passing day). The simple reality is that environmental degradation continues tosnowball while resource depletion spurs war, famine, and economicinstability.

So, without furtherado, these are the particular events which I predict will see largeprotests in the face of violent and corrupt power...

TheLondon Olympic Games: August 29th to September 9th

The underlying socialissues have not really been addressed in England since the riots took place in early August of 2011. While many apparentlywant to pretend that there was no socio-economic impetus behind thoseriots, others can see the reality of the situation and they realizethat the more such problems are ignored, or addressed poorly, themore they will continue to simmer and brew under the surface. Additionally, the modern Olympics are largely about advertising forcorrupt and exploitative corporations. Other issues ofhistorical injustices surrounding the Olympics, combined with theregular appearance of protesters at this nationalistic carnival,suggest that this year's Olympic games might see serious and unprecedentedprotests.

Global May Day Events: May1st.

I'm throwing this date out there because,historically, it has been a day of protest. In the context of acontinuing protest movement... I suspect that this year's May Daycelebration will attract more people, in countries around the world,who are interested in reviving it as a day for social justice and action. No date calls out for a general strike like May first and, with theway things are going, an international general strike on this day isnot out of the question.

The simultaneous G8& NATO Meetings in Chicago: May 19th to May 21st.

The"G" events have become an annual beacon to social justiceadvocates around the world and have inspired many of the mostaggressive protests in recent history. So... a G8 meeting, combinedwith a NATO meeting during the same week, in the same city, only portends to whatwill certainly be some of the biggest days of protest all year -- withsolidarity actions undoubtedly taking place around the world.

The RNC (August 27–30, Tampa, FL) & DNC(September 3–6, Charlotte, NC) Conventions

Every 4 yearsthe Republicrats meet to celebrate their continued domination of thecorrupt American political system. All their corporate sponsorsshow up and it's generally an extravagant production intended to keepthe American people buying the same old lies while they aresimultaneously hung out to dry. Historically, these conventionshave drawn relatively large protests (with some being quiteinfamous). My guess is that this year's conventions will offerthe best way to legitimize the #occupy movement as the protestersinvolved with that movement will show that they are not partisan and that they recognizethe corruption of the "one party state masquerading as a twoparty state." As the #occupy movement has proven fairlysuccessful at not being co-opted, I guarantee, at both conventions,that you will see a few shirts and signs featuring the iconic 99%. In any case, the protests at these conventions (and related protests around thecountry in solidarity) may prove to be the most historic of theyear. The corporate "person" pulling the stringsbehind the curtain of U.S. politics has been revealed (thanks to the 99%) and thatwizard is just about out of tricks.

A closing comment in regard to all theprotests.

Beyond the most superficial level I will probably not be very hands-on in regard to the specifics of anyorganizing around these protests. I've been, more or less,relegated to spreading basic information and news about these events. So... I'm not going to be recommending any particularcourse of action for any particular event. That said, I'll referonce again to Naomi Wolf: "Real protests stop traffic."

Beyond that, I'd just like people to be mindful about whatthey think their best course of action might be in regard topolitical protest. It's important to think things through andyou may not always want to get beaten or arrested by the police whilebeing marginalized in the media. There is a fine line between staying safe and taking calculated risks.

Furthermore, noteveryone will be in the same mindset regarding protest. Butremember... no one wholly owns these protests. Therefore, whilesome people will want to be mild along the revisionist perceptions ofGandhi, others may have already had their lives wrecked by the systemand therefore tend to be more aggressive. I condemn neither but feel thelatter often gets marginalized unjustly by the former. I won'tcondemn you if you are protesting minor decreases in your standard ofliving (or higher college tuitions) -- nor will I condemn the belligerent personwho has lost a brother in the oil wars, a sister to the trumped up drug war, afather that couldn't pay the medical bills, and a grandmother who wasforeclosed upon. And I certainly won't expect them to simply line up passively for more punishment at the hands of the state. I won't condemn someone who is mildly upset about globalwarming nor will I condemn the person who is protesting because they understand that theanthropocene mass extinction is already well underway. I mightroll my eyes if someone wants to sing Kumbaya and stick flowers inthe barrels in the police rifles, but I won't condemn them any morethan I will condemn someone who is a little more aggressive andprovocative about these matters.

That's about all I've got to say on these topics. I'm not necessarily predicting the final collapse of civilization this year, and I'm not really going out on limb in expectations about upcoming protests, but 2012 is shaping up to be a very interesting year andyou might want to start thinking about how you'll be passing thetime.

Crises Can Be Openings: Defeating our enduring fatalism.

2011-11-30T14:24:00.001-08:00

This article was written by Sasha Lilley. She’s the author of Capital and Its Discontents from which this piece was taken. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/99/crises-can-be-openings.html

The past several years have witnessed the spectacular unraveling of capitalism, or so it has appeared.

Venerated investment banks have vanished overnight, titans of industry have permanently shuttered their doors, and rich nations have lurched perilously close to default. The ideology of the free market, once seemingly unassailable, lies in tatters. While the death knell of capitalism may not yet be tolling, the crisis is undoubtedly of a different order of magnitude than anything seen in decades.

Crises can be openings: moments when the stanchions are kicked out from under the status quo, when the pieties of the recent past fall away and a revitalized sense of collective power takes shape. But crises aren’t always – or only – opportunities for radicals, mechanically ushering legions of the downtrodden to the barricades. In times of crisis the far right often harnesses the insecurities of the precarious, as well as the monied, in the service of xenophobia and austerity. Paradoxically, crises of capitalism are opportunities for capital. Notwithstanding any frontal challenges to the old order, those capitalists who survive the shakeout and destruction of competitors can find fertile ground for a new round of expansion. Such demolition and regeneration are often aided by force of arms: contrary to the pacifist slogan, war is the answer, razing old capital and clearing the way for the new. Even the crisis of nature is fortuitous for capital, spawning green commodities and product lines as coral reefs, rainforests, freshwater lakes and rivers perish, and myriad species disappear forever. Capitalism begets crisis and then crisis begets opportunities for profit. And so it goes. Or so it has gone.

For better or worse – often for worse – the left has a long history of diagnosing the death throes of capitalism and the final conflict heralding radical change. As the old witticism has it, Marxists have predicted ten out of the last two economic crises, a perpetual chronicle of a crisis foretold. Yet in the midst of what arguably is the fourth global crisis of the capitalist system, radicals – whether in North America or South Korea – find themselves adrift and tentative. We should be thankful for the departure of the old mechanistic view of the world, at least from most quarters. But what has taken its place? Anxiety about day-to-day survival has deepened the abiding anti-utopianism of our age. An enduring fatalism about the possibility of radical social transformation, the scar tissue of dashed hopes and sanguinary defeats, has us firmly in its grip. With the exception of a few pockets of militancy (and at times adventurism) the idea of organizing for a postcapitalist future commonly seems delusional: one thinks here of the now oft-quoted saying that it has become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Another crisis, one of both vision and organization, is painfully in evidence.

It doesn’t have to be so. We are living through an era of considerable flux. Ideas alone won’t solve the crisis of the left, and revolutions cannot be summoned by fervent wishes. But ideas matter, as the often-tragic history of the left has proved. They are born out of action and shape the deeds of the future. They help us understand the world we unwittingly have helped to construct, grasp the many vulnerabilities of the current order and devise avenues for fracture and revolt.

Dear Occupiers: A Letter from Anarchists

2011-10-10T23:41:00.000-07:00

The following text appeared at CrimethInc.Com and is being reposted here and elsewhere.

Dear Occupiers: A letter from anarchists

Support and solidarity! We’re inspired by the occupations on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country. Finally, people are taking to the streets again! The momentum around these actions has the potential to reinvigorate protest and resistance in this country. We hope these occupations will increase both in numbers and in substance, and we’ll do our best to contribute to that.

Why should you listen to us? In short, because we’ve been at this a long time already. We’ve spent decades struggling against capitalism, organizing occupations, and making decisions by consensus. If this new movement doesn’t learn from the mistakes of previous ones, we run the risk of repeating them. We’ve summarized some of our hard-won lessons here.

Occupation is nothing new. The land we stand on is already occupied territory. The United States was founded upon the extermination of indigenous peoples and the colonization of their land, not to mention centuries of slavery and exploitation. For a counter-occupation to be meaningful, it has to begin from this history. Better yet, it should embrace the history of resistance extending from indigenous self-defense and slave revolts through the various workers’ and anti-war movements right up to the recent anti-globalization movement.

The “99%” is not one social body, but many. Some occupiers have presented a narrative in which the “99%” is characterized as a homogenous mass. The faces intended to represent “ordinary people” often look suspiciously like the predominantly white, law-abiding middle-class citizens we’re used to seeing on television programs, even though such people make up a minority of the general population.

It’s a mistake to whitewash over our diversity. Not everyone is waking up to the injustices of capitalism for the first time now; some populations have been targeted by the power structure for years or generations. Middle-class workers who are just now losing their social standing can learn a lot from those who have been on the receiving end of injustice for much longer.

The problem isn’t just a few “bad apples.” The crisis is not the result of the selfishness of a few investment bankers; it is the inevitable consequence of an economic system that rewards cutthroat competition at every level of society. Capitalism is not a static way of life but a dynamic process that consumes everything, transforming the world into profit and wreckage. Now that everything has been fed into the fire, the system is collapsing, leaving even its former beneficiaries out in the cold. The answer is not to revert to some earlier stage of capitalism—to go back to the gold standard, for example; not only is that impossible, those earlier stages didn’t benefit the “99%” either. To get out of this mess, we’ll have to rediscover other ways of relating to each other and the world around us.

Police can’t be trusted. They may be “ordinary workers,” but their job is to protect the interests of the ruling class. As long as they remain employed as police, we can’t count on them, however friendly they might act. Occupiers who don’t know this already will learn it firsthand as soon as they threaten the imbalances of wealth and power our society is based on. Anyone who insists that the police exist to protect and serve the common people has probably lived a privileged life, and an obedient one.

Don’t fetishize obedience to the law. Laws serve to protect the privileges of the wealthy and powerful; obeying them is not necessarily morally right—it may even be immoral. Slavery was legal. The Nazis had laws too. We have to develop the strength of conscience to do what we know is best, regardless of the laws.

To have a diversity of participants, a movement must make space for a diversity of tactics. It’s controlling and self-important to think you know how everyone should act in pursuit of a better world. Denouncing others only equips the authorities to delegitimize, divide, and destroy the movement as a whole. Criticism and debate propel a movement forward, but power grabs cripple it. The goal should not be to compel everyone to adopt one set of tactics, but to discover how different approaches can be mutually beneficial.

Don’t assume those who break the law or confront police are agents provocateurs. A lot of people have good reason to be angry. Not everyone is resigned to legalistic pacifism; some people still remember how to stand up for themselves. Police violence isn’t just meant to provoke us, it’s meant to hurt and scare us into inaction. In this context, self-defense is essential.

Assuming that those at the front of clashes with the authorities are somehow in league with the authorities is not only illogical—it delegitimizes the spirit it takes to challenge the status quo, and dismisses the courage of those who are prepared to do so. This allegation is typical of privileged people who have been taught to trust the authorities and fear everyone who disobeys them.

No government—that is to say, no centralized power—will ever willingly put the needs of common people before the needs of the powerful. It’s naïve to hope for this. The center of gravity in this movement has to be our freedom and autonomy, and the mutual aid that can sustain those—not the desire for an “accountable” centralized power. No such thing has ever existed; even in 1789, the revolutionaries presided over a “democracy” with slaves, not to mention rich and poor.

That means the important thing is not just to make demands upon our rulers, but to build up the power to realize our demands ourselves. If we do this effectively, the powerful will have to take our demands seriously, if only in order to try to keep our attention and allegiance. We attain leverage by developing our own strength.

Likewise, countless past movements learned the hard way that establishing their own bureaucracy, however “democratic,” only undermined their original goals. We shouldn’t invest new leaders with authority, nor even new decision-making structures; we should find ways to defend and extend our freedom, while abolishing the inequalities that have been forced on us.

The occupations will thrive on the actions we take. We’re not just here to “speak truth to power”—when we only speak, the powerful turn a deaf ear to us. Let’s make space for autonomous initiatives and organize direct action that confronts the source of social inequalities and injustices.

Thanks for reading and scheming and acting. May your every dream come true.

Dear Occupiers [online viewing version]

Dear Occupiers [print version]

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET: Pacers, and leaders & spokesmen! Oh my!

2011-10-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

As an early supporter of the#OCCUPYWALLSTREET protest movement, I wrote a request a few days agoto the protesters involved with that movement. While waiting to fora good time to make that request public, an online acquaintance put forward a statement (from a conservative perspective) which coveredsome of the same points I wanted to make... so I put it off a bitmore. But now, I feel I need to put out the statement in a timelymanner -- because my concerns expressed therein suddenly feel morejustified. I will post that statement immediately before this oneand point out, once again, that I was spreading information aboutthis protest while few others were and have consistently done so fromthe beginning. And while I certainly claim no ownership of thismovement (I can't and wouldn't), I humbly request that those involvedwith the movement read these messages from an early supporter.

Today, while looking at the Guardian's"live coverage" of the protest, I came across somestatements and words which heretofore I had not regularly seen in associationwith this movement. The first was a statement by someone nameChristopher Longenecker who was identified as the "head of marchplanning and tactics." This title in itself struck me as odd inthe context of a heretofore leaderless movement but then the quotegiven from this person was even more shocking: "We don't doillegal actions."

What? Double take. Really? So all thepeople up until now, on the first days of the protest, who made thisoccupation happen from the first day, who left the sidewalks and tookto the streets in violation of official orders, who were they? Atbest, this Longenecker person seems confused. Civil disobedience hasbeen a known ingredient and accepted tactic of this protest movementfrom the get go. And, surprise, civil disobedience is illegal. So... who was this Longenecker speaking for when giving quotes to theGuardian? How was this person given such authority and such a titleas "head of march planning and tactics." I highly doubtsuch a title and role was granted by the consensus process. I'd betdollars to donuts that it certainly wasn't granted at a meeting withall of the protesters heretofore involved with the occupation.

So then this Longenecker personcontinues to accuse "provocateurs" of misleading the marchonto the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday when 700 people were eventuallyarrested. He speaks of "pace-keepers" who were"scattered throughout the marches, including the one onSaturday," and says that "One of the pace-keeperswas standing between the march and the highway and she was yelling asloud as possible that what was on the road was an illegal autonomousunplanned action – that the legal route was over the walkway andthey weren't supposed to take the highway." Well, if that'sthe case, if these protest officials, under the title of"pace-keepers," were at the march... then why weren'tpeople listening to them? Could it possibly be that the protesterssimply ignored their directions and chose to take the more bold routewhere a bigger story would inevitably be made? One person at theprotest on the bridge had a sign that read, "NYPD, pleaserespond civilly to civil disobedience." Why would this personhave such a sign if illegal civil disobedience was entirelyunplanned? Are we to believe this person might have been an agentprovocateur? Get real.

And so then... another person, ThorinCaristo, was identified by the Guardian as an "OWS media spokesmen" andapparently said they were working through video to identifyprovocateurs. But, at the same time as pointing out so-calledprovocateurs, this person said, "We are a really open democracyhere. Saturdays situation happened really quick and showed thevulnerability of a group that has no leaders." So what if thesesupposed "provocateurs" are merely offering a moreappealing course of action? What if people are choosing by their ownvolition to take the more aggressive and unpermitted protest routes-- with the implied understanding that it might entail more risk? What if some people calculated the risks for themselves and knew thatthe Brooklyn Bridge march would even further put this protest on themap? And so what if someone is arguing for such action, direction,and tactics? That does not make them a provocateur in the negativesense, it makes them an agitator -- and fairly successfulones at that. It's possible, and they might have been provocateurs, but that hardly seems proven and actually seems to the contrary.

So... I'm sorry (not really) if otherprotesters aren't heeding the "heads" and "spokesmen"and "pace-keepers" and other supposed leaders of thismovement. But obviously they don't need you and are putting thisprotest on the map despite you. And while I might be accused ofbeing divisive, I'm not the one accusing those who don't heed yourorders (or those who are offering different plans) of being agent provocateurs. And I'm not the one attempting to hamstring themovement by making such spurious claims about it not engaging inillegal actions. And while I'm also not making any directaccusations, I'm reminded of the anti-war protests a few years backin Oakland where thepolice actually took on the leadership role in protest marches. That's something to keep in mind.

In my other arti cle on this subject Iwanted to bring up the recent demonstrations in Madison, Wisconsin. Those protests had potential but they essentially failed because ofthe leadership. While the recall election didn't really change much,a general strike was in favor amongst a lot of the rank & fileand would have shut the state down until Walker was ousted fromoffice. But that's the thing... the Wisconsin protests were hinderedby the leadership and an unwillingness to truly inconveniencebusiness as usual. This has not seemed to be the case so far in NYC-- and this protest movement is growing as similar occupations pop uparound the country.

By all means... stay Gandhianif that's what you, and the other protesters are cut out for. Butdon't confuse Gandhian non-violence with pacifism. The weakness ofnon-violent activists in recent years, however, has been preciselybecause of thatconfusion. Non-violent does not mean obedient and within theconfines of legality. If you want to have a non-violent protest,or even a non-violent revolution, people are going to have to takerisks and be prepared to sacrifice. But you don't need a figure-heador a leader like Gandhi, or MLK, or Ralph Nader, or Christopher Longenecker to act together insolidarity.

I'd go further to say that those whodon't go along with the non-violent tactics should not be condemnedout of hand, but I don't know if my point will be understood. I'mthinking about the unemployed guy whose brother died in Iraq, whosegrandfather had his pension stolen, whose grandmother had her houseforeclosed, whose sister is imprisoned for trumped-up drug charges,and whose mother lost her job to downsizing despite record profitsat the corporation she works for. Such people exist, and mayact rashly, but who are any of us to condemn them for acting outin that context? I'm not necessarily saying I would condone any orall actions they take, but I might not entirely disown or condemnthem. Further... I don't see harm to non-sentient inanimate objectsas violence. I see property destruction more along the lines ofcivil disobedience. But I digress, and don't want to confuse theissue. My simple opposition to corporate fascism by itself opens meup to criticism by itself (as it does others) without beingcriticized by those who I would consider as my allies.

So, by all means, you people involvedwith the #OCCUPYWALLSTREET movement should keep up the good work. Continue with your Gandhian tactics as you see fit. Consider tacticsthat might disrupt business as usual without so many of you gettingarrested. And be wary of leaders who would hamstring your movement,marginalize you, and claim to speak for you as a whole. This aroseas a leaderless movement and should continue to be so! Keep up thegood fight! Your numbers are growing, the public supports you, andyou just might get the revolution you seek.

For The #OCCUPYWALLSTREET Protest Movement, A Simple Request

2011-10-03T17:04:00.000-07:00

First of all, I'd like to say that I'vebeen supportive of this protest since Adbusters initially put forwardthe idea back in July. I was regularly usingthe hashtag when few others had, I created adaily aggregator of tweets for the NewsworthyNewsTwitter feed, bloggedabout it, and have supported it in variousforums from the get go. I also attended the local manifestationof a solidarity protest in my own city. And while there is certainlynothing at all wrong with being a "Johnny-come-lately" inregard to this protest, I'd just like to point out that I havesupported the movement and watched it grow from the start. And,certainly, much more credit for organizing goes to again to Adbustersfor initially inspiring the protest, to others who have helpedorganize (both online and off), and to those who have been in thestreets of New York inspiring people around the world. All I'mtrying to say is that I've been supportive and I have one simplerequest of those who are occupying Wall Street....

Please, do not let this protestmovement get co-opted. The strength of this movement has been init's protest of the general system, overall, in its totality. Thosewho are intent on watering down this protest by trying to draw focusto a single-issue or to a mild reformist agenda, those who would pullpeople from the streets to instead pass petitions, or those who wouldtake charge and posture for political gain, are all potential drainson the energy of this movement. The "stone soup" model ofprotest has worked wonderfully so far. People are coming togetherand adding to the mix because they are all getting screwed over -- innot a particular, single way, but in every way! I do not need tolist again theplethora of grievances that so many people across the countryhave with the corporatism that masquerades as democracy in America. Continuing with the metaphor of the stone soup... What I fear isthat someone will somehow poor a gallon of cold milk into the proteststew just as it really starts heating up.

These may be well-meaning people, thosewho would have us focus on a single issue like campaign financereform or healthcare, but they are missing the point that biggerproblems will still effect us all and catch up with broadersociety if there are not fundamental changes to the structure ofpower in this country. And this protest must continue and grow untilwe get such a revolution. This is what's solidarity is about! It'snot about standing shoulder to shoulder until your particulargrievance is addressed! That's the trap of reformism and it is,truly, a death trap.

To those who would demean otherprotesters, or the protest in general, because they don't look likecorporate lackeys in the service industry, or because an occupationcan leave people disheveled ofter a few days, well... they can taketheir bourgeoisie ideals back to the mail room as far as I'mconcerned. People look different, they have different aesthetics,different cultures, and different styles. And this is an occupation,a protest, and potentially a revolutionary movement. As the oldsaying goes... a revolution is not a tea party. Nor is it a fashionshow, an entrance exam, or interview to be white collar worker insome corporate hierarchy. The important thing is that people showup, not what they are wearing when they do.

Worse than those would dictatefashionable aesthetics however... are those who would attempt to keeppeople in line, on the sidewalk, and in compliance with thedirectives of the authorities. As NaomiWolf points out... "A real protest blocks traffic." It's as simple as that. At the bare minimum, that is what'srequired. And it's supposed to be a constitutional right! It's the"right to peaceably assemble" not "the right topeaceably assemble unless it inconveniences people." Aprotest is supposed to inconvenience some people! And the idea thatsafety vehicles can't route around a large known protest is hogwash. They can whenever there are other large events or road constructionprojects and they can during this protest as well. The real safetyissue is what the corporate-sponsored government is doing to thehealth and freedom of everyone on the planet! So, since you'vealready taken to the streets, please do not let pacifying interlopersguide you back to the sidewalks. Tactical withdrawals at some pointsin some instances may, unfortunately, be necessary... but the goal isoccupation, not capitulation, not compliance, not obedience tocorrupt authority.

Obviously, and I'm sure many of youinvolved with the protest have already discussed this, theopportunity for a true general strike may arise. Starting in NYC itcould easily spread across the country and around the world. We aretalking about an unprecedented international general strike! And themotivation would be, and needs to be, for a fundamental change tomeet the needs of humanity for the sustainable future. So while thegeneral strike is not here yet... but the potential is. There are acouple things to always be mindful of in that regard and I don't mindpointing them out here...

The police state in the "land ofthe free" is historically unprecedented. More people areimprisonedin the United States per-capita (and in total numbers) than inany other nation on Earth. Surveillance systems have progressed asthe height of technological innovation. Wikileaks founder JulianAssange points out that we write our own profiles on corporatewebsites and the government is given ready access to those profiles. It's a simple truism that 1984 was almost thirty years ago. And I'mreminding you all of this so that you stay mindful and are preparedfor police violence or other forms of disruption from the state.

The second issue is really acombination of issues. It's the idea that government, using thecorporate media, will attempt to get people to "rally behind theflag" -- either by increasingly portraying the protesters asunpatriotic traitors or by creating (or heightening) an internationalincident (i.e. war). The issue of patriotism is a tricky one,because who and what is a real patriot? I'm reminded of AbbieHoffman in the American flag shirt. So, while I personally findsuch patriotic symbolism distasteful, it will probably pop upsomewhat naturally anyway and shouldn't confuse us in regard to whoour true comrades and allies are. The second issue, of the stateintensifying wars, is obviously of a more serious nature. But theanti-war message is intrinsically woven into an anti-Wall Streetprotest and, if a general strike manifests, ending the wars willcertainly be one of the motivations and possibilities for it. Weneed to recognize that very few people actually want war and we canwork to persuade people from participating in the wars.

And those are my hopes, and that is myrequest. Please, do no let this revolutionary protest movement getsold short and co-opted. Again, I'm merely one the 99%, but I'vebeen involved with related struggles for some time now and so, evenif it seems extravagant, I hope you'll excuse this one simple demand.

Stay strong! Keep up the good fight! Occupy Wall Street! Occupy everything!

Cablegate Analysis: COMBATING EXTREMISM IN GREECE -- Anarchists, Neo-Nazi's, Protests & Civil Liberties

2011-09-02T01:09:00.000-07:00

As the floodgates of diplomatic cableshas recently been unleashed via Wikileaks, I was inspired to do somefresh perusing of the newly available files. Originally looking forwhat the cables had to say about anarchists, I stumbled upon the following lines in a documentclassified as "SECRET" under the subject heading "COMBATINGEXTREMISM IN GREECE":

Greek society also views enhancedpolice capabilities with a jaundiced eye. Greeks are hypersensitiveto any perceived limits on personal freedoms; as an example, securitycameras around town have been vandalized. Members of Parliament havealso inveighed against their use; attempts to pass off the cameras astrafficams have been only partly successful.

While I knew theGreeks were less tolerant than Americans of police abuses (sincepolice collaboration with the Nazi's in WWII), I found the phrasingof these lines to be somewhat interesting. The Greeks aren'tdescribed as vigilant about preserving their rights, they are ratherdescribed as "hypersensitive." And the author seems tolament that "attempts to pass off the cameras as trafficams havebeen only partly successful." While this phrasing initself should be something of an embarrassment, it's somewhat tellingin how issues are presented and phrased. And, presumably, Americanshave fallen for the tactic of trying to pass off surveillance camerasas trafficams.

Upon furtherreading... I'd like point out how, in the cited cable, anarchists areconflated and categorized with neo-Nazi's. Similarly, ill-defined"extremist groups" are accused of "targeting" theU.S. embassy:

Above all, the United States isPublic Enemy Number One in Greece -- domestic extremist groupsregularly target the U.S. embassy to protest against both pasthistory and current "American hegemony."

Now, any groupwhich may protest the U.S. wars or trade policies is also conflatedwith "extremist groups" like the neo-Nazi's. I suppose oneshould expect to find Godwin's Law evoked in such a large volume oftext like that released in the cables, but this seems particularlycynical to me. Anyway... it seems that when tens of thousandsprotest the ongoing wars and the militarism of the United States,they are "extremists." Just like the millions of others around the globe who protested the war in Iraq during thebiggest day of protest in the history of the world, it is they whowho are the extremists and apparently need to be put into check. Andprotesting at the U.S. embassy isn't just that, it's "targeting"the U.S. embassy. The bias is in the subtle details of the words,and phrases, and conflated associations.

Another example ofextremism, anti-semitism even, is described thusly:

At the same time, Greece haslongstanding ties to the Palestinian cause and Arafat personally;Greece was the last member of the EU to establish diplomaticrelations with Israel (1990). In modern colloquial Greek (as in themodern Arab world) there is often no distinction between "Jewish"and "Israeli." The problem is compounded by almostuniversal opposition to Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories.

Certainly it'sinaccurate to refer to all Jewish people as Israeli's, but ifactually used interchangeably that way in the common parlance... I'mnot convinced it's worthy of listing such information under a headingof "ANTI-SEMITISM" or proof thereof. Much more to thepoint, however, is that opposition to Israeli government policies inPalestine certainly does not necessarily imply anti-semitism. Manyproud Jewish people, even some Israelis, oppose those policies -- andthey are certainly not anti-semitic. To present the aforementionedinformation as proof of anti-semitism, is intellectual incompetenceat best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

There will undoubtedly be more to come as the diplomatic cables are examined more thoroughly.

Dispatches from the Apocalypse

2011-09-01T14:55:00.000-07:00

An excellent, moving article from the Utne Reader written by Junot Díaz, from Boston Review

"Isn’t that after all the logical conclusion of what we are wreaking? The transformation of our planet into a Haiti? Haiti, you see, is not only the most visible victim of our civilization—Haiti is also a sign of what is to come."

Security Culture For Anarchists & Activists

2011-08-12T12:33:00.000-07:00

Throughout history it has been deemednecessary by some to take illegal action for the purposes ofdefending life and liberty. Examples of groups and individualscarrying out such actions are myriad. A very short list would includethe abolitionist JohnBrown, the writer HenryDavid Thoreau, EmmaGoldman, the MahatmaGhandhi, Dr.Martin Luther King, protestersat Tiananmen Square, members of the EarthLiberation Front, and an endless number of others. Very often,the actions taken by such individuals incur great personal risk. Thefollowing article may potentially help keep modern freedom fighterssafe and free.

Other primers on security culture doalready exist, but having another one accessible won't hurt, mayserve as a reminder of some safety measures, and might include someaspects not covered elsewhere. This article will draw on the adviceof similar articles as well as personal observations and experience.No particular action is suggested or defended, nor is any knowledgeabout any particular action desired or requested by the author.Defending an action in hindsight is not the same as wanting to knowanything about an action beforehand. Informing those who don't wantto know (or need to know) about any particular action can be seen asan attempt to compromise the action.

The #1 Security Measure: Acting Alone

The more people who are involved withany particular action, the more likely that action will be discoveredin an untimely manner. At the simplest level... more people areeasier to spot than a lone individual. More importantly, thelikelihood that any vital information will be overheard, leaked, orlater revealed also increases. The scale of any particular action maybe reduced (or require more effort) but that may be the pricenecessarily paid if one wants to stay free and have a higher degreeof certainty about the success of an action. Some actions may besafer and work better in groups, but as a general rule...acting alone is the safest way to proceed with any illegal action.

Small Groups

Generally speaking, the greater numberof people who are involved with any action increases the likelihoodof that action being discovered, thwarted, and punished by the samefactor. Therefore, it is imperative that you truly know who you areacting alongside. More to the point... it is imperative that you areeach acting in solidarity and not merely acting. It has beenrevealed that undercover agents of the state havegone so far as to marry activists they were surveilling. Invarious other primers about security culture it is often suggestedthat you know an individual for some number of years before youengage in any serious action. That number of years may be arbitrarydepending on conditions, but I would suggest additional measure...scaling of actions. Even after years... it is not suggested that thefirst action you undertake with someone should not be highlydangerous. If you want to do something major with others... startengaging in smaller actions with them first over the course of time.This will let you learn their level of competence, how they handlepressure or unexpected occurrences, and, generally, how well you cantrust them. This is not certain to protect you from betrayal, but itshould help dramatically.

Organizations

Public organizations are filled withtreacherous authoritarians. They may simply be making lists, possiblyrecording, buying the beer, laughing at your jokes, nodding inagreement, shaking hands, and basically observing... but even afteryears these things do not make them trustworthy. Others may be openlysuggesting those most ridiculous, dangerous, and counterproductiveactions. They too, may have their certain appeal (perhaps asidealists or firebrands)... but are not to be trusted. Undercoveragents have also been known to take the leadership role in publicorganizations -- so such status should not be seen as a reason totrust them.

Your best bet, if you are planning totake serious high risk action, is to avoid associating with publicorganizations. You do not want to get on any list as any sort of aknown activist or sympathizer if you are planning any sort of seriousaction. You do not want to be on the state's radar at all if you areplanning serious action.

Even if you are intending to limityourself to mild public protests, it is still often best to be waryof who is involved with such actions. Information about such actionscan be used to thwart them in advance or make them less impactful.The repercussions could be as simple as having a few uniformedofficers showing up at the protest location beforehand with theeffect of intimidating and limiting any particular action. Or,perhaps, a corporate or state entity could be given a jump start onany PR they might need to counter and marginalize any particular actof protest.

Mass Demonstrations

Major protests surrounding thingslike the RNC & DNC conventions, or the G8, IMF, and WTOmeetings... will continue -- for better and/or worse. I tend tothink these protests do have a valuable place in any movement forfreedom and social justice, but certain risks surrounding them needto be acknowledge and considered.

First of all... if you are alreadyinvolved with serious actions, going to such mass demonstrations is away to wind up on the state's radar. This can happen if you arearrested or merely identified (cameras are EVERYWHERE at suchevents). And, if you are planning a serious unrelated action, you maywant to wait a full year to put it into effect after attending apublic protest. This can be a conditional judgment call on your part,but it's something to consider.

Second, and perhaps more importantly,is that you need to be preparedfor police violence. Even if you are walking with the mostpeaceful people on Earth... heavy handed tactics are often used todisperse protests and to dissuade future protests. To avoid beingbrutalized by the state it is imperative that you remain constantlyaware of your surroundings at such protests. How close are you topolice lines? What is their posture? Are they dressed in full riotgear? Are their pepper spray cannisters being prepared for use? Isthe protest being guided into an enclosed area? Are you and the restof the protesters prepared to hold or take ground -- to what extentand under which circumstances?

Third... Dress for success. Wearcomfortable shoes. Have an easily carried bottle of water, perhaps ina light bag. Wear non-descript clothing -- black pants, black shirt,a generic cap, sunglasses (or safety glasses), and have a bandana orscarf around your neck. Be prepared to discard and change theseclothes if necessary. If you are possibly engaging in more militantactions... consider changing your style of hair or beard. Cover yourtattoos. This will make it more difficult to identify you before,during, and after the event.

Fourth... In many instances it maybehoove you to leave your identifying documents at home. Even ifarrested, you might not always have to give your name. This isconditional for your consideration. Sometimes largegroups withhold their names as an act of civil disobediencepending release.

Fifth... It is often best, even in themidst of a larger protest, to operate within a smaller, separate,affinity group. Discuss beforehand what you plan to do and consideryour collective response to various situations. Try not to split uptoo much and always stay with at least one other member of yourgroup. Extra eyes can help everyone be more aware of things the restmay have missed. Have predetermined meet-up times and locations incase you get separated. Discrete use of cell phones can alsobe useful for these purposes (but might also be monitored).

Finally... Consider alternative actions-- either away from immediate vicinity of the main protest (andpolice) or even in your own town/city. This could be an independentlyorganized protest march or an individual action carried out insolidarity with the main protest. Be creative and bold.

Computers & Electronic Surveillance

Various groups have recently starteddemonstrating the protest possibilities enabled by moderncommunication technologies. This includes the participants of flashmobs as well as groups like AntiSecand the appropriately named Anonymous.Beyond that... social networking has opened up the floodgates formass organization and action. It's likely that this trend willcontinue to grow, and become more creative, for some time.

Nevertheless, with that in mind, inneeds to be recognized that moderncommunication techniques are easily monitored by the state whowork hand in hand with the various corporations in control of theonline networks. Precautions can be taken to secure your personalcomputer and communication devices to some degree -- butvulnerabilities will always exist or arise with such mediums andshould never be considered secure for the purposes of transmittingsensitive information. You can get a hardware firewall, clear yourcookies, use encryption and proxies, and you can even use yourdevices away from home... but your digital communications can stilloften be traced back to you. Proceed with utmost caution when dealingin this realm and don't take the most serious actions with thesetools unless you are a highly trained expert.

Legalities

If you are approached or arrested bythe authorities... do not givethem any more information than you absolutely must. It is best topolitely confirm whether or not you are being arrested or detainedand, if you are not, then ask if you may leave. The nature ofauthoritarians is that you may be told you are not being detained butstill not allowed to leave. Do not answer any questions which you arenot legally obliged to in your jurisdiction, and ask again if you arebeing detained and arrested.

If you are being detained or arrestedyou can ask why, but still do not need to answer their questions.Instead... request to speak to a lawyer, preferably a trustworthy one(good luck with that now that LeonardWeinglass is dead), and work to expedite your release whilegiving them as little information as possible to make that happen.You do not have to spill your guts to a lawyer about anything you maybe involved with. Theycan potentially turn on you.

If a case against you is proceeding...it can get tricky. I am not a legal expert, by any means, butit can often behoove you to request a jury trial and then do yourbest to select a favorable jury (although that's not necessarilypossible even if you are completely innocent). You might want to lookinto the possibility of jury nullification. Jury trials areexpensive, time consuming, and potentially embarrassing to the state.Again... you will want trusted legal advice in these matters, and Iam not a lawyer or an attorney of any sort. These are simply some options that Ifeel you may want to consider.

Most importantly... you should neversnitch or turn on anyone. Even if you will seemingly get a muchbetter offer and sentencing consideration, it is the worst thing youcan do for your cause, for yourself, and for others who may beinvolved. To say that no one likes a snitch or a turncoat is one ofthe greatest understatements that can be made. Playing such a role issomething which you will never live down -- and it can be worse if youare still facing time after your cooperation. This is something whichshould be understood by everyone with whom you might be coordinatingillegal action.

General Surveillance

The following may be something toespecially be wary of if you are an overt and outspoken activist -- even if youare doing nothing illegal whatsoever. I've already briefly coveredelectronic surveillance, but sometimes they put people on the groundto monitor you as a supposed friend or, worse in my opinion, assomeone to simply harass you by following you around.

More than a decade ago, when I was ayounger and more aggressively outspoken lad, I had a guy who parkedin front of my apartment every day (he did not live in myneighborhood) and he would show up, every day, wherever I went. I'dgo to a coffee shop, he'd be there. I'd go to another... and he'd popup there. I'd go to see a band play... he'd show up outside the venue. I'd be in a grocerystore late at night... and he'd be the only other customer in thestore with me. This went on for weeks and was about the same time Iwas getting little leaflets left on my doorstep from "The Churchof Euthanasia" suggesting that I should kill myself to save theenvironment. Psychologically, these things can be very taxing but areright up the alley of COINTELPRO type activities. Be wary of thesethings, document such stalkers, and try to keep a level head. It goeswithout saying that you may not want to take unnecessary risks undersuch surveillance.

I'm going to tack on issues of sending and receiving mailhere too -- because that can easily be monitored as well. I oncereceived a letter from a prominent anarchist which looked like it hadall but literally been through the ringer when I received it. I'venever received any other mail in that condition. It arrived in aclear plastic bag which had text apologizing for the condition. Andthe biggest boldest letters on the bag read "WECARE." Suffice it to say that you should never discussanyone's involvement with illegal actions through the mail. That toois easily placed under surveillance. You may want to consider keeping your names off of certain mailing lists which might be used to profile you.

Other Related Sources of Information onthis Subject

Undoubtedly, I've left some things outof this primer. Tactics of the state can be utterly diabolical intheir creativity and can sometimes prove difficult to circumvent.Since most people today are never involved with illegal direct actionprotests... they do not know the risks and are often oblivious to therealities of surveillance. Lesser known activists may actually prove easier toharass than prominent figures with more people looking out for them and the resources to defend themselves. But some people will try to marginalizeyour concerns if you haven't appeared on the cover of a magazine atthe grocery store. The main thing, if you suspect that you may beunder surveillance, is to keep your head about you. Try to considerall the possibilities and try to balance your actions with thepotential risks you are willing to undertake. And thoroughly considerwhat you truly hope to accomplish by any particular action. Somepeople may not have the stomache or the nerves for certain activitiesand that's something which needs to be acknowledged. Some people maybe better at communicating, or showing up at mass protests, or acombination of actions with less of a risk. The main thing is try andbe aware of these things.

Here is an excellent video related to these topics and some links to otherrelated material...

ESSENTIAL VIEWING: Navigating the Security Culturehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aff7Y3ZyIFI

General Security from security.tao.ca --http://security.resist.ca/personal/

TheJudi Bari commemorative website -- http://www.judibari.org/

MartinLuther King friend and photographer was FBI informant:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/photographer-ernest-withers-fbi-informer

Undercoverpoliceman married activist he was sent to spy on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/19/undercover-policeman-married-activist-spy

Policespies chosen to lead war protest :http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/28/SURVEILLANCE.TMP&amp;type=printable

TheRight to Protest: The Basic ACLU guide to Free Expression :http://www.aclu.org/aclu-literature

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET (A shift in revolutionary tactics.)

2011-07-24T17:04:00.000-07:00

For more information see:
Adbusters: A Shift in Revolutionary Tactics
The #OCCUPYWALLSTREET Update
Search for the hashtag via Twitter.

Even if you are not an anarchist...

2011-07-23T17:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

I recognize that most of you reading this won't necessarily be anarchists. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't potentially have honest debates or discussions relevant to anarchism. And I would hope that if you wanted to discuss the ideas of anarchism that you would have the integrity and gumption to seek out the actual positions of actual anarchists (and not simply strike up a conversation with a group of reactionaries who have essentially squatted the r/anarchism subreddit). And that's what this is all about... establishing a new anarchist subreddit where civil debate and honest discussion can be had without worrying that you might have your posts deleted or be banned because you used inappropriate words like "lame" or "drama" or if you mistakenly refer to someone as a "he" in a passing comment. If you want to discuss the so-called "tyranny of words," that's fine... you won't be banned or censored for it. At worst... you will be downvoted in accordance with reddiquette. There will be no need to defend yourself in a separate subreddit where you may also find yourself banned before you can even mount a defense. You will also not be banned from the subreddit if you've ever posted something to a subreddit which seems to conflict with the principles of anarchism. That latter idea is right up the ally in terms of how r/anarchism moderators operate -- but it's not how r/AnarchistNews will function.

As with any subreddit, you will not agree with everything you see submitted there. And trolls will still be present to try and stir things up -- just like in other subreddits. But I'm trying to appeal to your sense of intellectual honesty regardless of your political inclinations. Anarchists have a long tradition of bringing about fundamental changes in society (perhaps moreso than you may be aware) and have included in their numbers some of the world's greatest scholars (Leo Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau, Noam Chomsky, and others whose credentials may be debated). The ideals of these people, and other historical anarchists, should be treated fairly, with intellectual honesty, and with the respect that is seriously lacking in the r/Anarchism subreddit.

So I beseech you, once again in the name of intellectual honesty, to subscribe to r/AnarchistNews, vote on some of the articles, and comment if something seems interesting to you. I hope that's not too much to ask. Whether you fully agree with them or not... anarchists deserve a place in a free society (or any other) where they can honestly and openly discuss things of interest to them. But the current anarchist clearinghouse on Reddit (r/Anarchism) is not very reflective of anarchist ideals, ethics, or practice. It's a subreddit where the trolls have taken over the forum and it should be abandoned because the current moderators will never relinquish their control over it -- at best they will merely shuffle around the sycophants and sockpuppets to give the semblance of change. People should literally be warned about engaging with that forum.

As a closing sidenote... I should point out that the number of subscribers to r/Anarchism has partially been inflated because of the controversies that have occurred there in the past which reached the front page of Reddit. Other non-anarchist redditors subscribed merely to watch the chaos and to support the common users in their disapproval of the moderators. However, unfortunately since then, the number of subscribers has given the air of legitimacy to an otherwise corrupted subreddit. This is a situation that needs to change. People should abandon the r/Anarchism subreddit and support a truly anarchistic subreddit.

TL;DR -- r/Anarchism is not an adequate forum for anarchist discourse. A new subreddit (r/AnarchistNews) has been created for that purpose and could use your honest support (regardless of your political leanings).

A Critique of Google Plus: The Good, the Evil and the Ugly

2011-07-13T00:23:00.000-07:00

Last night I was finally sent an invitation to try out Google+. And, after a quick examination, I'm glad I didn't believe the hype. Don't get me wrong... I was very pleased and excited to get my invitation. It's just that, judging by the entirely uncritical response I'd seen from my online communities, I was almost convinced that it was actually going to be the best thing since sliced silicon. The marketing department was working overtime to build up expectations about this product in a way that only Google marketers could. And scores of diehard Google fans were more than eager to help them out -- regardless of how good the latest Google product actually was. Anyway, deep down, I knew it wouldn't be everything thateveryone was making it out to be.

The problem, at first glance, is simply that Google+ is stylistically sterile and cold. The main page simply doesn't make good use of screen space and it's largely just an empty white blankness. On a large white screen the actual content is relatively easy to focus upon, but there is still a lot of blank space next to pictures and photos (in addition to the general emptiness of other areas on the screen). That's finefor a search engine, and okay for email, but terrible for socialmedia which is supposed to be more about people engaging and expressing themselves. Perhaps customizable themes will help out in that regard -- but Facebook was not quick to implement such a feature (it never did) and it's up in the air as to whether or not more personalization is going to being available any time soon for this product.

Beyond that... I'm not certain that Google Plus offers what Facebook doesn't. It's certainly not as engaging with the Apps (and, like them or not, that is a draw for many people). Again, engaging Apps may come... but they may not. And, after everything Google should have learned fromFacebook, there is still no "dislike"button (or the option for "-1" vote)!

One thing I do like about Google Plus is that the content created on the service will continue to belong to the user(s) who created it. That's no small thing, but it's not really an issue for most people either -- as most people merely disperse content rather than create it. People don't generally use Facebook to create their artistic works.

In any case... Isuppose I might, effectively, end up being forced to use this product(at least peripherally) -- but I don't like it. I simply don't likethe feel of the service. I don't like the letdown from the hype, and I don't likethe fact that even more information is being cycled through onecorrupt corporation. As I said... Google presents a pretty good search engine, a ubiquitously convenient email service, and evenReader & Blogspot are decent services (I use both) -- but sometimes Googlejust tries too hard and hypes too much before disappointing utterly (re: Orkut, Buzz, iGoogle, etc.).

Another primary thing I don't like about potentially sharing content on Google+ is in regard to it's political application. Again... another lesson which should have been learned from Facebook (and Twitter). Shared posts via this new service should have the option of not revealing who shared them before and who gave them a +1 vote. This would allow sharing to continue with ease while not alerting the authorities (of some despotic regime) about who the proponents of a certain message are (when they inevitably stumble upon it). This is a feature which could, and should, be added -- and it's largely why I'm writing this critique. It's one thing to let people know that a post got a large number of +1 upvotes (that can be important to show that a movement is growing or that a post is valuable), but it's another to let everyone down the line know who gave those +1 upvotes or shared the article. And it's naive to assume that all those who upvote an article aren't themselves naive about potential political ramifications. Even online circles can, and will, be infiltrated by agents of oppressive governments. There is no reason to make their list-making easier.

Furthermore, along those lines of political privacy and potential repercussions, it would be a slightly different matter if Google wasn't known to cooperate with the U.S. government in terms of readily complying with the flimsiest of digital search warrants. As Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made clear recently... Google, along with Facebook & Yahoo, "have built-in interfaces for U.S. intelligence." This is no small issue, globally or within the United States, but more pressure needs to be put on these corporations about this issue -- and that really hasn't happened yet, at all.

Now... to further back up my earlier claimsabout Google being a corrupt corporation, I unwittingly searched Google forcriticism of itself to provide some embedded hotlinks for this article... but guess what I found? Unsurprisingly,not as much as I found when subsequently searching Yahoo with thesame terms. In fact... criticism of Google was largely buriedin their own search results (with only the conspiracy fringes usually rising to the top of various search results). There were no prominent articles featured about Google's original compliance with China's censorship policies. No prominent articles about European antitrust and privacy or surveillance complaints. No prominent mention of how Google revealed contact lists via Buzz. It was relatively difficult to find any real criticism featured at the top of many search results. This makes some obvious sense (as the corporation is apparently protecting itself), but itgoes to show that Google is not always interested in returning themost relevant search results. And that, in itself, is somewhatproblematic. Other issues of privacy and corrupt corporateinfluence abound around Google -- just don't use Google to search forinformation about these issues (unless you want your research seriously stymied).

Beyond that... consider that Google has the power of potentialretribution against any of its critics. If a brief littlecomment like this one gained popularity (perhaps via Twitter or Backlinks) the author and their other works would still risk being knocked down a few levels in relevant search results. You might want to make the most of any supposed "free speech" and try to facilitate the free flow of ideas... but Google hasthe power to stifle that process -- and is apparently willing to doso. How does that jive with their primary function as a search engine and their motto of "Don't beevil"?

Now, I don't entirely blame Google for all of these issues -- it's just another psychopathic multi-national corporation willing to do whatever it can to increase its power and profit margins. Part of the blame for its ethical and stylistic shortcomings lie with us, the users of Google products. We need to stop uncritically accepting everything Google offers us (as if it really cared about our personal interests). We need to demand accountability from this corporation (and all of the powerful corporations that hold so much power over our daily lives). We need to look past the brand and the marketing to see if Google is really helping to make positive changes in the world. Anywhere it's doing harm and violating it's motto is where we need to be pointing and demanding change. Google will only be as accountable as we demand it to be. At least... ideally.

I suggest that the only wayGoogle could really start to redeem itself is if it bumped up myblog's pagerank by a full point and then made these comments appearprominently on all searches for criticism about it. But I don'tthink Google has the guts. So, Google, the ball is in yourcourt... or are you afraid?

TL;DR -- Google Plus is only slightly better than Facebook, at best. It's interface is somewhat unsightly. Key features, which should be available, are not. The dubious ethical actions and policies of Google, as a multi-national corporate entity, should not go unchallenged. Google users, if they truly want to make it more user-friendly, should look past the brand and marketing, attempt to hold it accountable, and promote criticism of the company. Prominent placement of this article within Google's search results does not necessarily indicate capitulation. Feel free to repost this content for the sake of posterity.

Reddit, Anarchism, Guerrilla Marketing & Racism

2011-07-08T10:58:00.000-07:00

As an unrepentant news junkie I oftenperuse Reddit, submit articles for consideration, and contribute tovarious discussions on that website. And, in general, I like a lotof the stuff I find on Reddit -- from the mundane (r/starcraft &r/poker), to the profound (r/TrueReddit & r/BadCopNoDonut), andeverything in between (r/reddit.com). That said... Reddit has somepersistent problems which I feel reflect negatively on the wholesite. Some of these problems you may care more or less about, andmaybe all the problems aren't of equal importance, but these are some of mythoughts about Reddit which I hope might make the site better.

The r/Anarchism Subreddit is NOT an AnarchistCommunity.

I know that not everyone reading thisis an anarchist (and may hardly have anarchist leanings at all), butthe things is... many of those who post in that subreddit (includingthe moderators) are hardly anarchists either! This leads to asituation where people who may be curious about the philosophy couldstumble upon the r/Anarchism forum and thereby become misinformed and/orturned off by the ideas they see presented there. This may very wellalready be the reason why some people would never consider themselvesanarchists!

Some of you might think that I'm makingmuch ado about nothing, as if the subreddit were entirelyinconsequential, but the fact is that r/Anarchism is a forum whichranks very high when doing a basic Google search for the term"anarchism." So... I'm suggesting that it is actuallyinfluential about what some people think about modern anarchism. Those who value honest discussion (whether they are anarchists ornot) should therefore take issue with an "anarchist" forumwhich actually does very little to promote the philosophy.

The issue isn't really even aboutwhether or not the moderators of that subreddit are anarchists -- Ihave some faith that a non-anarchist could fairly moderate the forumby simply taking care of basic housekeeping (which basically meansremoving obvious spam and cleaning the spam filter). The realproblem is that many of the r/Anarchism moderators (and regularcontributors) are steeped in reactionary identity politics, accusepeople willy nilly of abusing their perceived (1st world, male, pale-skinned)privilege, and then... they threaten to ban people who suggest things assimple as the idea that all people should be treated fairlyregardless of their race, gender, or geographic location. Misusing agender pronoun seems tantamount to a capital crime in some of theireyes.

I'm not blind to the issues of injusticesurrounding race, class, gender, or sexuality. I've often discussedsuch topics frankly on my blog or in various forums (including onReddit). But that doesn't mean I'm going to condemn and entirelydemonize someone who possibly makes the slightest of ignorantmistakes -- and I'm certainly not going to condemn someone who didn'tactually suggest anything inappropriate! Nevertheless... this is a red herringwhich is repeatedly thrown in the faces of several contributors tothe subreddit. And these red herrings and "straw man"arguments are repeatedly used as a moderation tactic to deraildiscussions, attract trolls, and to set people up for being banned from posting to ther/Anarchism subreddit. How much this behavior influences the casualredditor in that forum, or the broader anarchist community, isunknown -- but I suspect it has had some effect.

Beyond that... the moderators buryvarious articles which don't go along with their warped sense ofanarchism. Sometimes they bury them just long enough so that thearticle won't be given a chance to rise to the top of the page andthen they make it visible again when the article will have less of achance to be seen. This has happened to me and I have little doubtit's happened to others. Frankly... I find this behavior to beintellectually dishonest and authoritarian.

Now... I can't say with absolute certainty thatthe following is true, but I suspect some of the r/Anarchismmoderators of potentially being online agent provocateurs. Thiswould be something very easy to pull off on a forum like the onesused by Reddit. If you don't know the tactical history of staterepression, surveillance, and disruption used against anarchiststhroughout history... this may seem odd to you. But I assure youthat surveillance, disruption and repression happens both online andin the real world. And, with the case of Reddit Anarchism, it's not like thesubreddit even had to be created by an anarchist at all! The subreddit,quite possibly, could have been created by anyone who simply wantedto play the role of "anarchist" and then control the forum fortheir own purposes. I ran this idea past the creator of thissubreddit and their response was that, "I don't have any reasonto believe the government is trying to keep tabs on internetanarchists." As if the government would never interfere ormonitor the activities of online anarchists. Such naivete isstriking from someone who supposedly created the subreddit to spreadanarchist links (as if none of those links would have ever been aboutsurveillance, infiltration or disruption of anarchist groups).

Finally, before I move on to the theother topics, I should point out that there is a backstory to thepoor (i.e. reactionary & authoritarian) moderation currentlyfound on r/Anarchism. Some months ago the creator of the subredditwas browbeaten by a number of people claiming that this person was asexist and abusing their privilege, etc.. Consequently... the creator decided to de-mod themself and a new crew of moderators took over the subreddit. When they, in turn,started banning people (at a greatly increased rate) there was anoutcry from the forum users suggesting that those moderators were overstepping theirauthority. It was persistent enough that some of the moderatorseither stepped down or were removed. Hundreds of upvotes were givenin some threads calling for the removal of various moderators. Nevertheless... not all of the moderators were removed, manymoderators seemed opposed to removing the offending mods, and not alot changed since the public outcry. Now it's at the point where,recently, a user was "warned" (a step towards banning) in r/MetAnarchism foreven bringing up the fact that one of the disliked moderators hasn'tstepped down yet. The moderator, in their defense, said that theywould actually step down from their position when the drama died down -- butrequesting that they fulfill the community's wishes to step downmaintained the drama and, therefore, they wouldn't be stepping down just yet. Follow that logic?

In short... redditors, and people ingeneral, should be wary of anything they see on the r/Anarchism subreddit -- it isnot necessarily at all reflective of anarchist ideas, principles, orbehavior. For those more curious about modern anarchist thought... Iwould suggest looking at titles from AK Press, Microcosm Publishing, or at other anarchistforums... like AINFOS, ANARKISMO, Infoshop News, or Anarchist NewsDot Org.

Guerrilla Marketing.

Mercifully... I don't have as much tosay about this topic. It's a pretty cut and dry issue. Subtle (andsometimes not-so-subtle) advertisements for various products andcorporations appear constantly in various subreddits. These can bein the form of memes, or in the form of a snarky picture, or in theform of a product being used in some unconventional or silly way. Sometimes even plain video advertisements get up-voted. And nomatter how uninteresting or poorly constructed... some of theseguerrilla ads shoot to the top of a subreddit at speeds that regularposters would be envious of. This type of behavior (gaming andmanipulating the forum) has been exposed before -- both on Reddit andpreviously on Digg. Unfortunately, as Reddit has grown dramaticallyin recent months, the new casual users don't seem to care as much about this issue andtherefore tolerate this nonsense. Personally... I find it annoying,it's a pet peeve, and I wish people would resist their consumer urgesto upvote advertisements on Reddit.

Racism.

Although Reddit generally has aprogressive veneer, it seems like Reddit has recently been invadedby groups of racists who work together to upvote articles andcomments with racist messages. A thread might start off in aseemingly or relatively innocuous way by asking: "Why don't black people tip well ?" I'm not suggesting that's a questionasked from a place of tolerance or racial harmony, but it's nothingcompared to the comments which will then follow in the forum sectionof such a post. After the offending post itself gets promoted to thefront page of Reddit... then the racist comments really pile up. And whilesome of the most overtly vulgar comments will get downvoted andburied... if a racist uses the least bit of civil articulation thentheir comment is liable to be upvoted to the top of the page.

I'm not sure what can be done aboutthis unless it's regularly pointed out to people and they start being morevigilant and mindful about such racism on Reddit. When you see ahateful racist comment... at least take the time to downvote it --even if you choose not to respond with a comment of your own. Thereis no reason such comments should continue being presented astolerable to the Reddit community -- because, by and large, I don'tthink such hatefulness is truly reflective of typical redditors (oreven of society at large). And I truly fear that what may bepresented as a casual racist joke (or a stereotypical truism) mightactually influence some of the smaller minds who are exposed to suchnonsense. Racism is a serious continuing problem in the U.S. and peopleshould be more vigilant about putting a stop to it. Maybe it won'tever be stamped out completely, but the social animosity it createsis truly burdensome to society at large. We've got other serious problems to deal with as a society, or maybe we just want to pursue funand games, but racism impedes and distracts from both of those endeavors. I don't mean to sound preachy, but the racism on Reddit issimply unbecoming and totally disgusting.

So that's it!

My rant is over! You've made it to the end of a long-winded article despite your stunted attention span! My demons have beenexorcised and I hope to inspire some thoughtful discussion with thisarticle. I wasn't trying to slam Reddit overall, quite to contrary,but I hope these comments might serve to make it a better onlinecommunity. If you haven't created an account on the site yet... you might wantto consider it for nothing other than the lulz.

TL;DR -- 1.) The anarchist subreddit(r/Anarchism) is not very reflective of actual anarchist philosophy,behavior, or practice. 2.) The lame ads on Reddit which arepresented and promoted as legitimate content degrades the siteoverall. 3.) Racists have been networking and making regularcontributions to Reddit with popular posts and comments -- this issomething redditors should be more vigilant about addressing andminimizing.

DEBTOCRACY (English Subtitles)

2011-06-28T00:25:00.000-07:00

This documentary provides comprehensive and insightful commentary about the Greek economic crisis and the related unrest in Greece. It presents a great history of European economics and examines the economic relationships which have developed around the world in the last few decades. It also provides a critical look at the EU, the IMF, and American banking and economic practices.

For the first time in Greece... a documentary produced by the audience. "Debtocracy" seeks the causes of the debt crisis and proposes solutions, hidden by the government and the dominant media.

Editor/Script Katerina Kitidi
Aris Chatzistefanou
Scientific Research Leonidas Vatikiotis
Animation Magda Plevraki
Sokratis Galiatsakos
Music

Giannis Agelakas
Ermis Georgiadis
Aris RSN

Edit Aris Triantafillou
Camera Aris Papastefanou
ulia Reinecke
Coloring Thanos Tsantas
PR Michalis Alimanis
Contributors Aggeliki Gaidatzi
Fani Gaidatzi
Ioulia Kileri
Margarita Tsomou
Production Costas Efimeros
2011 - BitsnBytes.gr

http://www.debtocracy.gr/indexen.html

#Ecuador #Ireland #PIIGS #USA #Financial #Crisis #depression #economic #collapse #debt #GoldmanSachs #protest #austerity #UK #militarism #corporatism

END:CIV – RESIST OR DIE – Full Documentary

2011-06-24T16:10:00.000-07:00

From http://submedia.tv/endciv/

Philosophical Ramblings About Freedom, Chaos & Predetermination

2011-06-18T20:58:00.000-07:00

For those who know me personally... it's no secret that I dwell in the mundane almost as much as I dwell in the realms of radical politics and other esoteric/technical ideas. In large part, I find this to be a basic necessity if one wants to socialize at all in society.

To the extent that people want to personally discuss more profound subjects, I find this to be difficult for (at least) a couple of different reasons. First of all, a lot of us are often incapable of having a true conversation because we approach such encounters with an agenda -- even if just subconsciously. We often tend to steer conversations back toward certain topics (and ways of viewing things) which we are comfortable with. Along those lines... it's very hard to stay on the same page when facts and ideas are misheard, misunderstood, misinterpreted, imagined, or falsified. For these reasons, I like to participate in written forums where ideas can be presented in their entirety and statements can be quoted directly and accurately -- while supporting sources of information can be provided as linked. Secondly... I don't generally trust people all too much. I won't get into all the reasons again, but suffice it to say that some people are overtly manipulative and often seek information they can use for their own potentially malicious interests. Between these two realities, as I said, I find it difficult to discuss many ideas with people in casual conversations.

That said... with intelligent companions, a bottle of rum, and a pack of smokes... some interesting ideas can be fleshed out and articulated. I'm not too proud, or ashamed, to say that's what partially inspired this article. And so... I will try now to lay out some ideas from last night's conversations.

Just as we become acclimated to constant subtle changes in the technological and political landscapes of our reality, we also may become acclimated to the subtle changes in the fundamental phenomena that underlies the existence of our world.

We do not live in a static universe. Everything, everywhere, is constantly changing -- if only in proximity. I believe this to be a readily accessible, a priori, fact. This is hardly a groundbreaking revelation but, like so many other things in our lives, we do not often take the time to consider the implications of such realities.

Brought on by an argument against predetermination (which itself is a relatively strong, simple and convenient idea), the thought occurred to me that we do not often truly appreciate the vastness and complexity of our universe. All the information that the whole of humanity will ever have is infinitesimal. The underlying factors of our existence are, in all probability, beyond our understanding. We as individuals, and as a species or society, may pride ourselves on all we seem to know about the workings of the universe -- but it's no secret to many that we have yet to even scratch the surface of the surface about matters which are infinitely deep.

I won't get into the mystical beliefs of countless religions but, in many ways, they are often as (in)valid as the other mythologies which we take as veritable gospel. Take, for example, the big bang. The name itself suggests a simplicity reserved for explaining how the stork brought your baby sister. But more than that... the idea that there is an edge or boundary to the expanding universe is akin to thinking that you'll fall to oblivion if your ship sails too far out into the ocean. Teaching such theory is little better than creationism insomuch as it leaves more questions than it attempts to answer and, at the same time, it is based on an incomprehensible phenomenon which, in so many words, led to a big explosion that created everything. Yeah... thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I'm not saying that things can't be observed and understood to some extent. Reading this now, for instance, is proof that's possible. But that hardly implies the potential for unlimited comprehension. We can plot the trajectory of a ball thrown at us, and we can even safely assume some factors of Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, again, this knowledge is but the surface of the surface of what is to be known. And there is little to suggest, beyond hubris, that we will ever even understand the topology of this surface -- much less what lies just beneath. Upon examination of the physical minutiae of our world... we never cease to find more subtleties within subtleties -- minutiae within minutiae -- and this unlimited spring of reality is why we can't reasonably expect to extrapolate to the point of a predetermined world.

Those who are conditioned to arguing that all knowledge can be extrapolated upon endlessly (based on what we think we already know)... are acting upon an article of hubris and faith. The underlying phenomenal building blocks of our existence are likely working under the guidance of unlimited and incomprehensible physical chaos. This isn't to say that any particular thing is likely to occur at any given time or place, but it's probably not too bold to suggest that anything is, truly, possible. And while basic factors of our reality could suddenly be altered like the shifting wind... in most cases, it seems, we generally go with the flow of our ever-changing world. This isn't to say that any particular change couldn't be jarring but, more often, changes might be imperceptibly subtle. Any population that has witnessed and experienced a more dramatic change may simply have ceased being around to later mention it -- or they may have been too shocked to recall it.

Now... some might ridicule the practicality of believing that anything is truly possible -- as if one day we might wake up to cats flying and birds offering sage advice -- but sudden dramatic changes are not the primary expectation from these ideas. Rather, more to the point, is the humble idea that we should expect to be surprised and, further, we should recognize the possibility of personal empowerment. We may be unlikely to alter, unweave, or recompose the underlying fabric of existence, but we can play a part in altering the immediate conditions of the world around us. Hope doth spring eternal for a very valid and comprehensible reason, because anything is actually possible.

It should be reiterated that something being possible (during a particular timeframe) isn't the same as anything being likely at any particular moment. The point of these ideas is not to justify any or all actions. Rather, these ideas should encourage us, along practical lines, to act in accordance with the best of our knowledge. As with a thrown ball, we can extrapolate (to some degree) the near-term trajectory of occurrences in our world. This limited extrapolation, combined with underlying chaotic potential, empowers us to act as a force for considerable change in this world.

I offer this article for your consideration not as something completely unrelated to the political subjects I often write about but, rather, as something of a philosophical underpinning to those ideas. It is not impractical to expect radical changes to be brought about and manifested within the current social order because, in the grand scheme of things, that's something which we can reasonably have a direct impact upon. And, in fact, it is more unrealistic to expect social conditions to be beyond our influence and to remain as they are. Imagine how bizarre modern social customs will seem in a millennium!

In any event... while radicals want to fundamentally change the status quo, it is the social and political conservatives who may be fighting a losing battle. And it is the privileged liberal class which is acting slowly as a pressure release valve in order to keep things essentially as they are -- it is not their type of change that the masses of the world wants or needs.

A new world is possible. Not one technologically engineered from the mythological mysticism of science but, rather, one which is renewed by actions for social justice and environmental sustainability. We are not at the mercy of predetermined mechanical forces which lead inevitably to a particular end. We can be empowered and we can make choices that take us beyond the artificial constructs of the status quo.

Orwellian Surveillance, Spies & Infiltration

2011-06-10T13:09:00.000-07:00

In George Orwell's world of 1984... were a billion people suffering from the effects of malnutrition? Was a full seventh of that fictional population hungry? Obviously things were rough in that fictitious world, but was it really that bad? Was it hard for billions of people to find potable water to drink? Were the oceans surrounding Oceania full of plastic? Was the primary fuel source of Eurasia leading to a negative feedback loop in the climate (which consequently might raise the planet's temperature by several degrees within the next century)?

I recall in the book that the proles were rationed low quality cigarettes along with imitation chocolate, and I know they were spoon-fed manufactured pop culture to keep them content... but did they really have it that bad? I mean... compared to the reality of our world today -- in the U.S.A. and beyond.

Particularly in the U.S. and Britain, Orwell's book has veritably been used as a guide to establish a surveillance society. New laptops come with cameras (built right in and focused at the user). The "memory hole" is quaint compared deleted emails. And, as Julian Assange recently pointed out... Facebook is "the most appalling spying machine ever invented." People write their own profiles which are kept on corporate servers and then the corporations give open access to the government. Some people even discuss radical politics on public forums which, for all they know, may be owned, operated, or monitored by government agents. In short... I'm not certain the modern spying apparatus could be much improved or made more efficient.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much the modern world resembles (or has surpassed) the dystopia of 1984. It's not inconceivable that the masses of our world are as ignorant as the Proles about the inner-workings of the inner-party. How about the general acceptance of war and the tolerance of civilian casualties in enemy nations? And does the "two minute hate" have anything over the celebrations which took place when Osama Bin Laden was assassinated? It's even been shown, for those who will care to look, that, like the "followers of Emmanuel Goldstein," Al Qaeda was mostly a government fabrication.

Again though... I think we generally overlook a key aspect of Orwell's dystopic vision. That key aspect has to do with how untrustworthy and personally disloyal those around us are. This is related to the surveillance apparatus, but I think it's deeper than that -- because we have no idea of how much we can trust anyone around us. Under the auspices of the "war on drugs" (which itself is beyond Orwellian), even the children are instructed to inform on their parents -- and neighbors are encouraged to keep tabs on their neighbors. But that's still just the tip of the iceberg.

If you are any sort of dissident (even of the mildest character and only advocating the mildest changes) you run the risk of encountering informants paid by the state. Spy recruiters callously suggest that, “By working in domestic terrorism investigations, you get to see the First Amendment in action.” And so... you start to get stories of vegan potlucks being infiltrated. But that's just the start. Agents have long been known to worm their way into groups of radicals and set them up with actions they otherwise may never have had anything to do with. Undercover agents have even gone so far as to marry activists and retain their cover for years! They have not only joined radical organizations... they have even taken key leadership positions within those organizations -- and this is a fact which should not be overlooked or taken for granted. Just as in Orwell's novel... lovers, neighbors, seemingly innocent shopkeepers, and politicians at all levels, are often potentially suspect in terms of personal loyalty.

I would suggest that even if you are not an activist, or a radical of any sort, that you should still be cautious about whom you let into your personal circle of friends. Even though they may dress like your clique, smile profusely, laugh at all your jokes, and shake everyone's hand... those are only superficial aspects which allow people to get much farther than they should. Anyone can learn the talking points of any party line and seemlessy integrate into a circle of friends as say just the right things. Again... this is especially true amongst radicals -- but everyone should be cautious about gossip-mongers, those who exaggerate petty problems, and those who frequently talk with flippancy about highly illegal actions (real or hypothetical). In general, it makes sense for everyone to avoid those who may be subtly trying to dismantle functional (or potentially functional) relationships. Such things happen all the time.

In practical terms... what this all amounts to is a breakdown in what radicals and activists refer to as "security culture". For those unfamiliar with the concept... security culture includes ideas like "loose lips sink ships" (in regard to varying degrees of direct action which a group may be involved with). There is more to it than that, but what's often missed is the fact that you usually shouldn't participate in serious direct actions with anyone who loudly and boisterously talks about security culture -- because while it may make the individual look like a legitimate activist (and they might be), such individuals are all but raising a red flag to draw the attention of government agents (assuming they aren't one). People who publicly talk about things like security culture in reference to political action can only ever legitimately be above-ground activists -- because as soon as they start talking openly about such things they, and their social connections, are monitored. It needs to be recognized that above-ground radicals are taking risks simply by talking about and advocating certain ideas -- and they should only mix with underground activists very conditionally. It should even be noted that agents can be arrested, on the pretense of being "down with the cause" and/or some of them might collect a reward in civil court after supposedly having their civil rights violated.

The larger problem, however, may be that people are simply resigned (and/or blinded) to this reality. Millions of people get their concepts of freedom from cable news and very few people really know anything about the likes of anarchist history or any sort of liberation theory. The masses have had their rights and privacy stripped away, they've been convinced by the media that a terrorist group could be ready to strike at this very moment, and they've been placated by bread and circuses while being made aware that things are worse for the people who are actually being bombed and terrorized in their name. And, again, most people aren't radicals, activists, or even politically aware beyond the shallowest level. They watch television shows which glorify the police (and the secret police), and they are sold that glorifying line of thought more often than they get pitched consumer goods during the commercial breaks. But when someone in their proximity gets unjustly trampled by the state, figuratively and/or physically, there is a disconnect for them as to why that is happening. It's usually dismissed as a simple mistake, an unfortunate misunderstanding, or an isolated tragedy -- despite the fact that people get brutalized every single day by agents of the state. If an individual was at all guilty of anything... it's usually accepted that they deserved whatever treatment they received (no matter how harsh or disproportionate).

In any event... I have my own reasons for writing this particular article. Because of writing of articles like this (although this current article is pretty tame), combined with my living conditions (if you can call it living), and taking into consideration my youthful actions of the past (I was something of a reckless firebrand)... I am probably in a better position whereby I can readily see and experience the things discussed in this article on a regular basis.

Nevertheless... I, and much of this article, will be written off as being merely paranoid. I understand that and it doesn't bother me. I am confident in the ideas I've presented in this article and am not completely paralyzed with fear (although I'm usually pretty careful not to step too far out of line these days). I know this article, and I along with it, will be mocked -- despite any compelling links presented or ample logic demonstrated. I don't feel like much of a martyr about that because I really don't care about what most idiots think about me. And I could elaborate about times in my life when I was overtly followed for weeks on end (at the same time when little notes would appear on my doorstep suggesting that I should kill myself). I could tell the story of how I was drugged with a strong hallucinogen at the WTO protest in 1999. Or... maybe it would be relevant to tell about the time I was smashed by an uninsured private snowplow while riding my bicycle (in 70 degree weather). And maybe I should explain how all these things factored into my eventual meltdown. But... that's all beside the point. I didn't write this article for my own sake. Think what you will of all this and take it or leave it.

If you are an agent of the state... if you still have a soul or any humanity left... start blowing whistles anywhere and everywhere you can. Otherwise... you will remain the lowest form of humanity and will continue to represent the worst of our species (and that's saying a lot if you know anything about humankind).

Understanding Anarcho-Primitivism

2011-06-08T12:07:00.000-07:00

NEWSFLASH: Anarcho-primitivists, rather than seeking to destroy everything, are trying to curtail the anthropocene mass extinction furthered by the techno-industrial civilization which continues it's destructive plunder at this very moment.

A primary problem with anarcho-primitivism is that it is both maligned in ignorance and promoted with ideals of zealous purity. As the years have went by, and after constantly having the primitivist critique at my disposal (at least in the back of my mind), it is clear to me that it is often misunderstood by both critics and proponents alike. And, after garnering some much deserved attention around the turn of the century, I worry now that the philosophy may be getting lost amidst the growing struggle to meet basic immediate needs and the growing number of distractions in a culture of banalities and spectacle.

In an effort to convey the particulars and subtleties of primitivism, pedantic definitions will (perhaps ironically) be necessary. For those versed in the terminology and who understand the basic concepts of the philosophical positions promoted by primitivism... these definitions may seem over-wrought and excessive. However, part of the problem with anarcho-primtivism is (as with many philosophical schools of thought) that each thinker writing on the subject will have their own particular idiosyncratic nuances in regard to the meaning of particular words and phrases. When dealing with a subject that partly criticizes the development and implementation of basic language... the task of clarifying these subjects and terms becomes even more tedious. Nevertheless, intellectual honesty and a need for thoroughness requires effort on the part of any who would seriously like to ponder complex and intricate subjects. Efforts will be taken in that regard as this article proceeds.

So... what is primitivism? Using the modern communication devices currently at our disposal, it should come as little surprise that first definitions of the subject one will find when searching online are... simplistic, unflattering, or both. Since primtivism offers up one of the strongest critiques of those modern communication devices, it is understandable that such mediums will lead prominently to biased and particularly unhelpful definitions. I believe it was Jacques Ellul who wrote of the difficulty one might encounter in getting a book published that criticized the publishing industry... and a similar phenomenon can undoubtedly be found at play here. The point isn't that more flattering and edifying definitions can't be found, but simply that they are, to some extent, buried in literary pablum -- whether that be in the form of pulp at the bookstores and universities or in the so-called cyberspace of the internet.

But finding practically edifying philosophical terms regarding primitivism isn't simply a problem in an academic sense -- the whole of modern civilized culture is somewhat at odds with the practical ideas of primitivism being spread. The subtle biases against primitivism are necessarily engrained within techno-industrial mass society for its own continued existence. Were that not the case... we might instead be living in primitivist society (as humanity did for the vast majority of its existence). The simplistic prejudices many show against anything wild, or against any chemically unsterilized domicile, can run deep. Even when some of those prejudices are consciously understood to be irrational... we still may sometimes find them within us -- because we have been born into a culture that is fundamentally hostile to things which the proponents of primitivism hold in high regard.

Hopefully, by means of juxtaposition, we have now started to clarify what primitivism is. But the philosophical position of anarcho-primitivism is more than a critique of the things which it sees as being problematic. For example... it would be quite impossible to find any well-known primitivist proponent who was opposed to the general concept of preserving bio-diversity. That is to say... primitivists are for the general preservation of biological diversity on Earth. But some confusion on this point may begin by the way such a position is often presented -- not as merely being for bio-diversity, but against the anthropocene mass extinction of species across every phylum. It's a subtle point, to be sure, but either way it should still open the door to analysis of why the current mass extinction is taking place -- and that is where the primitivist critique effectively presents itself.

Another point of confusion is how anarcho-primtivism relates to other anarchist tendencies. For example... the Industrial Workers of the World might be an anarchist group that is often at odds with anarcho-primitivists -- for obvious reasons. While anarcho-primitivists might want to stop the practice of genetic engineering, nuclear experimentation, and other more overtly detrimental techno-industrial practices... many anarcho-syndicalists would merely want to try and control the processes and results of such activity. In the final analysis... these juxtaposed groups are going to be at odds. Honest civil debate, however, can currently be had between these two schools of thought. And it should be noted that both groups are far from achieving their goals. This being the case... both groups can currently, possibly, in a pragmatic way, work together against rapacious corporations that make little reasonable pretense about any supposed humanitarian good that comes from their activities.

I've come to think of the anarcho-primitivism as more of an ideal rather than as practicing tendency that can immediately make its results seen. Anarcho-primitivists are concerned about the long term health of humanity and the biosphere -- and that's why they are concerned about what's happening today. But anarcho-primitivists, like many other groups, can't offer a sure-fire way to immediately bring about their idealized vision. Rather... it is up to individuals and small groups to decide what they think will be the most effective action for the long and near term. Some primitivists are influenced by the ideas of insurrectionary anarchism while others are more Gandhian --- and both may have valuable things to offer at different times.

For the sake of simple clarification and brevity... I will now do my best to outline the basic positions of anarcho-primitivists on a point by point basis.

1.    Humanity can live healthy, happy, sustainable lives -- without the bureaucratic governmental apparatus which inhibits those aspirations.

2.    Contrary to an abundance of revisionist history (often written by ignorant or overtly biased historians) the structure of primitive societies was usually not rigidly hierarchical, was not dominated by patriarchy, and was not at constant war with neighbors.

3.    Life in primitive societies is not "nasty, brutish, and short." Consider that when the Europeans invaded (and brought civilization to) the "new world" they were riddled with the plague and fighting horrible wars between kingdoms and opposing religious adherents. The healthiest and most peaceful people on the planet were invaded by civilized Europeans who had the shortest life expectancies on Earth. While modern medicine may offer some advantages (along with some disadvantages)... primitive people often had healthier lifestyles and diets, produced and lived with less pollution, didn't suffer from technological accidents associated with cars or industrial workplaces, and often had a thorough understanding of medicinal plants and the medical practices they needed to survive. And the types of wars they fought were not nearly as brutal or comprehensive as is the case with modern civilized warfare.

4.    Primitive societies were not (and are not) comprised of foolish and unintelligent people. On the contrary. That many primitive societies were destroyed by the military devices and diseases brought down upon them by civilized societies does not change that fact.

5.    The widespread implementation of many harmful technological devices and processes were brought about by early implementation of restrictive and unhealthy regimentation -- this includes the development of agriculture (beyond basic horticulture) and the development of formal written languages. These processes, in turn, have continued to facilitate the development of more harmful technological devices and processes. Many technicians today are often separated from the results of their labors so that they don't comprehend when their research is used in a manner that is unrelated to the project they were working on. Classic examples of this would include Alfred Nobel (who was trying to make mining easier when he invented dynamite) and Albert Einstein (who did not initially realize his work would lead to the atomic age and release the potential for nuclear warfare).

6.    The use of technology against techno-industrial civilization should be undertaken on a pragmatic basis. In some instances it may be that some people in modern society have no choice but to use technological means to get by in their daily lives. While flippant casual use of technology should probably be criticized more than it is... glancing at a television or occasionally using a computer is not the greatest crime against humanity. Purity is for drinking water and, often, is impractical to look for in individuals. The point is, generally, that technology is best used against the worst aspects of techno-industrial society. This usage, in many instances, is why anarcho-primitivists are often correctly referred to as neo-luddites.

7.    Beyond the immediate physical dangers posed to humanity and the biosphere by techno-industrial civilization... there is a constraining and harmful psychological aspect that comes from living within such a society. Even if civilization wasn't leading to mass extinction, and even if a billion people weren't currently facing issues of hunger, starvation, and warfare... it would still be reducing the quality of life for those living within it. Living in close proximity to an unpolluted natural world offers psychological benefits that are contrary to the effects of being in a traffic jam, working on an assembly line, or staring at a computer or television all day. Civilization stifles our mental health, our creativity, and our understanding of the world around us. Direct contact and interaction with the natural world offers more benefits than simulations or filtered representations of life.

More points might be added later, or corrected if necessary, but I hope this primer works to clarify the positions of anarcho-primitivists. If you wish to leave a comment in any forum where this is presented... I will try contribute to any sincere discussion of these topics and, again, I am open to expanding or correcting any mistakes which may have been included in this article. If you take issue with any particular section or phrase in this article... please be specific and quote what you are referring to. While I appreciate the liveliness of some trolls/critics, as a regular contributor to various forums I am not inclined to respond to anything that is obviously being misrepresented, has already be clarified, or which is taken out of context. My hope is that the discourse on this subject can be elevated and I look forward to a lively discussion on the topic at hand.

Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the Middle Eastern Uprisings

2011-06-01T01:12:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Some quick notes...

2011-05-21T23:43:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

Japan's Tragedy and the World's Crisis

2011-03-15T04:15:00.000-07:00

Along with so many others around the world, my heart goes out to the people of Japan as they face an ongoing tragedy brought about by a devastating earthquake, followed by a tsunami, and subsequently a worsening nuclear disaster. When such horrible things happen to such a sophisticated and cultured society, it reminds us all of our tenuous position on this Earth.

I do not at all want to minimize the trials and tribulations of others around the world who have also been confronted with horrible disasters in recent years -- Haiti, Indonesia, New Orleans, and Iraq come to mind -- but as the third largest economy in the world, and as a technological powerhouse, what's happened in Japan is a reminder that any of us can be devastated at any time. The most advanced engineering can't prevent tragedy, and the most advanced technologies can prove to be the most dangerous.

And it needs to be pointed out that, given Japan's geopolitical & economic status, the tragedy in Japan may prove to bring about crisis around the world. The effects may not be as sudden or shocking as the earthquake which the Japanese people experienced, but the economic ramifications could be equally as tragic for many people across the globe. It feels a little callous to talk of dips to the GDP and the crash of the Nikkei stock market, but international trade has been effected -- and in this interconnected global economy, people's very lives depend on certain aspects of trade. How the terrible events in Japan will effect people in other nations remains to be seen -- but have no doubt that people will be effected in ways precisely unknown at the moment.

In the simplest of terms... consumer-based economies of the west (like the United States) will almost certainly be effected. Production in Japan has largely been halted, supply chains have been disrupted, and the types of imports into the world's 3rd largest economy will be substantially different. All these factors will reverberate throughout the factories, fields, and mines of other nations. Unemployment and economic hardship are almost certain to follow -- and those hardships will cost lives and destroy nations.

Don't mistake me for believing that up until now there has been economic justice or stability around the world! On the contrary! But that's what makes the situation even more dire. Those in power, particular the corporate oligarchs, are likely to exploit this disaster just as they have so many others. Undoubtedly, we will soon be seeing yet another example of "The Shock Doctrine" put into practice. In the wake of a disaster of this magnitude... it is impossible to speculate upon the depths of depravity to which the corporate fascists will stoop. Our safest bet would be to not underestimate them while preparing to resist.

Furthermore, in light of the global economic chaos of recent years, the recent events in Japan may prove to be the linchpin which unravels the entire global economy. Accusations of histrionics may fly, but never have there been so many people dependent upon the machinations of such a corrupt and cruel global economy. Never before has their been such a disparity of wealth around the globe. Never before has their been such tight demand on a non-renewable fuel source. And as tenuous and contrived as the whole modern economic system has become... it's just taken yet another terribly devastating blow.

A reiterating word must be said regarding the tight demands of fuel for the global economy. In particular... the peaking of non-renewable coal and oil. The reality of peak oil is actually a very simple concept, but few have adequately acknowledged it. As the human population is growing exponentially... the primary fuel of our modern techno-industrial civilization is simply running out. If extraction rates haven't already peaked -- as many experts have suggested -- they certainly will in the not-so-distant future. We are talking about the fuel which powers the tractors, transports the food, and forms the primary basis for petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Simply put... the whole system of modern agriculture practices is unsustainable!

The concept of peak oil is not brought up merely because it plays such an important role in the global economy. It is a problem all on its own, to be sure, but when such individual problems are put into the context of other serious economic problems... it becomes apparent how they are interconnected. And what this current article is suggesting is that Japan is very much connected with the rest of the world's economy. A crisis like the one we are seeing in Japan will have repercussions throughout every other sector -- all around the world.

Finally, a word needs to be said about nuclear power. From the first tests of nuclear weapons, to the bombing of Hiroshima; from the meltdown of Chernobyl to toxic waste, and on to the proliferation of fissile material... nuclear power has never been the safest or cleanest technology. Many people around the world have been sold its merits by governments which actually had little interest in it beyond its utility for war and profits. But it's never truly been a viable long term solution to the world's energy needs. In any case, either way, the prospects for expanding nuclear power around the world have undoubtedly been diminished as the world witnesses the ongoing meltdown of reactors in northern Japan.

And again, the nuclear tragedy in Japan is also the world's crisis. Japanese people are known around the world as being at the forefront of technological advancement -- and if their nuclear power plants can melt down... it could happen anywhere. Indeed, many lesser reactors are currently in operation around the world. All of them need to be formally, efficiently, and quickly decommissioned. And while that may sound like an extreme proposal... it would be nothing compared to more nuclear disasters.

No further proposals will be made in this article beyond that last one. The crisis in Japan is a microcosm of what we are all facing everywhere around the world and, at the very least, we are all effected by the events taking place in Japan. The reality is... civilization is in dangerous and uncharted waters. Some might suggest that these things have always happened in every civilization, but never have we (as a species) experienced problems of this magnitude -- with so many billions of us dependent on such a corrupt, flawed, and faltering system. If we do not acknowledge and actually rectify the myriad of problems with our modern lifestyles... I am not sure what can save us from ourselves.

On The Continuing Protests In Madison, Wisconsin.

2011-03-11T23:01:00.000-08:00

As impressive as the tens of thousands of Wisconsinites have been in protesting the harsh austerity bill being pushed through by Governor Scott Walker, let's not overlook the fact that this battle is just getting started. Any lulls in protest activity are still punctuated by huge protests on the weekends and literal signs for a general strike are appearing and being carried all over town. Horns are still blasting around the Capitol building at any given hour and vigils are still being maintained. There is a sense that the unions, and the rest of the populace, are preparing themselves for the next round. And as hard as it might be to conceive of these huge recent protests as part of a rope-a-dope strategy... it is the general population that has been playing gently with the Governor thus far. History has shown us that the masses ultimately have the power, if they are willing to use it, and it doesn't appear that the right-wing has a very thoughtful tactician to guide them through the impending battles.

That said... the protest movement, particularly insomuch as it is being manipulated by mainstream politicians and self-appointed marshals, could falter. It will be up to individuals, thinking for themselves and communicating their ideas horizontally, to prevent this movement from becoming too watered-down and compromising. It should not be misunderstood -- the power at this point is in the hands of the masses of protesters. Not to put too much of fine point on it, but it's somewhat reminiscent of the scene in Fight Club when Tyler Durden reminds the local politician...

"The people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."

I'm not suggesting that union members should start fight clubs, and lord knows I wouldn't want to go fisticuffs with a steelworker, but the point is that no one should allow their power or importance in society to be diminished -- especially when considered collectively as part of mutually beneficial organization. The people hold the real power in this world -- as long as they are willing to use it. They should not be looking to give concessions -- they should be looking to take them, all of them. And when the grassroots "leadership" starts talking about giving concessions... their megaphones should be shoved somewhere the sun doesn't shine. The notion of giving concessions at this point is beyond ridiculous -- unless you're willing to take yet another step towards giving everything away.

What needs to be understood is that this right-wing putsch by Governor Walker, and it is an attack on far more than worker's rights, was a blunder which must be thoroughly capitalized upon. Right-wing asses are showing and now is not the time to help them pull up their pants or to offer them your extra pair. The right-wing putsch has suddenly accelerated the political pendulum -- and we need to take the momentum on the back-swing to topple everything the right-wingers stand for.

With this harsh but simplistic legislation proposed in Wisconsin, the far right has brought everything they've been doing in recent years under sudden and intense scrutiny. And I've made a point in not referring to Walker and the state Republicans as "conservatives" because that's simply not what they are. Take, for example, the provisions for no-bid contracts included in the budget bill. That's not conservative at all -- and it's hardly even capitalism. At best it's crony capitalism and that's a first cousin to corporatism. The point is... it's corrupt, expensive, and a big change from the way things legally are supposed to be. It's hardly conservative in any way. And, because of the overreach, people are paying more attention to such issues than they otherwise would.

But the issues go far beyond crony capitalism -- as corrupt as that might be. And the positions of state politicians in Wisconsin are reflective of the corrupt and expensive policies pushed by politicians in Washington, D.C. on the national level. For example, getting to the point, let's look at the cost of the current wars. It's been estimated that if only 151 soldiers from Wisconsin were returned from Afghanistan... the savings from their deployment costs would cover the budget deficit. If the war in Afghanistan were stopped altogether... that would amount to savings of $1.7 billion dollars, for Wisconsin alone, in just the first year after the war ended. And again... we see that the wars aren't pushed by "conservative" politicians but, rather, by right-wing politicians. For pragmatic purposes alone this point should be reiterated until the cows come home.

And then... let's look at the prison-industrial complex. In Wisconsin, as with the rest of the country, this industry has seen explosive growth in the past few years. But beyond the money which gets cycled through the growing government bureaucracy for this institution... it's a very expensive burden for society in general. This is speaking in terms of the costs for keeping so many people locked up (usually non-violent drug offenders) and in terms of what it does to society. Sure, some corporations get sweetheart deals for prison labor, but generally speaking... families are driven into poverty, the generational cycle of crime and incarceration increases, and more and more people get locked up for lesser and lesser crimes. Simply speaking, compared to the cost benefits of drug treatment and better schools, the prison-industrial complex is a huge drain on society. So again... we aren't looking at a "conservative" issue but, rather, a right-wing issue. This becomes more apparent when we look at the racial identities of those who are incarcerated.

Also, let us not forget about the corporate bailouts (which were in addition to the regular corporate subsidies). This is pure corporatism, and as Mussolini himself pointed out...

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism as it is the merger of state and corporate power."

As teacher salaries are slashed and social programs are cut.... the wealthy were given bonuses -- usually in more ways than one. But I won't even get into this topic since the details are known to almost everyone (except for maybe the Tea Party people).

And it should be pointed out that the Democrats are often quite complicit, even directly complicit, in creating many of the policies discussed in this article. I know that may be hard for some to hear, and the Democrats often look like humanitarians compared to the Republicans, but voters need to move on -- the American system of politics is a good cop/bad cop routine which has ended up taking away your rights and your material security. The Republicans attack and then the supposedly liberal (or moderate) Democrats come in to make concessions and save the day. Rinse and repeat until we all end up down the drain.

But the real problem comes about when people don't connect the seemingly separate issues (the wars, the prison-industrial complex, the bailouts, and the attack on worker's rights) as being part of the same overall right-wing corruption. So, for example, if the public workers want more people to understand and join their struggle... they should be addressing broader issues which effect many lives (and which are incredibly expensive to everyone). If you want worker's rights, fine -- but why should anyone side with you if you don't want to address the other serious issues which are cost-related? Not everyone knows about unions, but a lot of people have family members who lost their homes, or who have been killed in the wars, or who have been sent away for a pocketful of joints.

When all of these issues are acknowledged together... a broad coalition of people will be formed -- in addition to the strong numbers already showing up at the Capitol to protest. When this broader coalition takes to the streets together... the only issue then will be in showing continued solidarity as the right-wing starts making concessions. And have no doubt... to maintain their power, and their very tangible wealth, the right-wingers will have to start making concessions. They absolutely can (and will) be forced to make concessions. But even when all the union employees end up getting raises... there will still be issues that effect them in the long term. Even if these current wars are ended, equally imprudent new ones may be quickly orchestrated, and the prison-industrial complex will still be ripping communities apart. All of these issues are connected and will end up coming back to haunt us -- unless we force very broad fundamental changes. That may sound daunting, but unless you want to merely be hacking at the branches... this is the type of protest movement we need. That is to say... we need a revolutionary movement. And it will be a populist movement as well.

Finally, before closing, I would like to say a few words about protest tactics. Although I've learned a lot from what I've already seen coming out of Madison... I've been involved with many major protests (WTO, G20, et cetera) over the last decade and I've given the matter of protests some considerable thought. So, if I may be so bold, I'd like to offer up some thoughts and suggestions...

First of all, despite being overwhelmingly popular, this protest movement will continue to have critics. But no matter how mild you are or how many concessions you might offer... the right-wing media will still criticize and demonize everything you do. So, instead of trying to placate any uninvolved portion of the population with meek actions, the protesters will gain more support if they step things up with bold actions. Even when the traffic finally gets stopped and someone can't make it home in time to watch American Idol... that person needs to be made to understand that these issues are about them, about their lives, and their families, and the future of their community. Wake them from their slumber, get them to join the protests and actually live. If they can't (or won't) grasp what's at stake... don't sweat it -- and don't let them derail the protest.

Secondly, although the relative restraint of the police surrounding this protest has thus far been bemusingly anachronistic, historically the police forces usually end up serving the people holding their leashes -- and that ain't you. I'd love to be proven wrong, but cops aren't usually the members of society fighting for social justice and human rights. The corporate power elite will only allow traffic to stop for so long -- and that's absolutely what needs to be done if you really want to have a true and effective protest -- before they give the order to bust up the protest. People need to start acknowledging that fact now and they need to think of ways to protect themselves as the general strike moves ahead. I'm not necessarily talking about committing the heinous sin of self-defense, but people might want to get creative in the ways they start impeding traffic flow.

Third, let's not condemn those who commit the heinous crime of self-defense. If someone has lost their job, their house, their son in the war, their daughter to prison-industrial complex, and has generally been hung out to dry by the system... why should they then have to accept getting arrested or having their head busted because they were blocking traffic? And remember, particularly in this instance, when people are defending themselves, they will actually be defending everyone else in this state. And if the bank that foreclosed on Grandma Millie (before giving out bonuses to it's executives) gets it's window smashed... why would any decent person condemn the individual who threw that brick of justice? That's a tiny token act, and you can bet that more people will be inspired by such a symbolic act than will be turned off by it. It's up to you to contextualize such actions from such individuals -- it is not your duty, or in your interests, to condemn them. I know this is hard for some liberal peaceniks to hear, but you can quote all the revisionist history of the civil rights movement you want -- and I'll stand by these sentiments. And a window doesn't suffer or feel pain anyway. The real violence is the violence of the system which is tearing society down at a pretty quick pace right about now. I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do, or to even advocate anything in particular, but I am asking you not to condemn those who have had their lives ruined and who now decide to fight back.

Lastly, I would suggest that it's not in anyone's interest to delay or hold back the momentum of this protest. This relates to a point made a few paragraphs earlier, but it's a slightly different one. Someone, or some group (perhaps a coalition), is going to have to take the stand which starts the general strike. A small group of a few hundred people started marching down State Street days before the hundreds of thousands joined them during this protest. Before it became a given, a small group had to take the stand to occupy the Capitol building and force the government's hand at removing them. Another relatively small group might have to take a stand to kick start the general strike. I'd suggest the teacher's union might take the lead (again) and work towards that purpose -- but they'll have to deal with the subtle legalities of language should they want to move things forward this way. In any case, whichever groups decide to strike, that will be the most inspiring action they could take if they want others to join them in bringing about real change. Movements like this tend to grow -- they don't just spontaneously erupt because every last individual is on board. When the teachers strike, and then the librarians strike, then prison guards might grow a spine, and then the bus drivers might strike, and then... it stops being a matter for just unions. At that point it becomes feasible for anyone, in any sector or station, to join in -- and if traffic is stopped all over town, what could any boss expect of their employees? At that point we might even get the last of the hesitant students to join the protest. Everyone will have little to lose and everything to gain!

This is what it's all about. This is the power of the people actualized! This is the opportunity which has presented itself! This is the moment to seize! It may take some serious sacrifice, and results won't be instantaneous, but this is the way to bring about serious and lasting social change. And, with any luck, Madison might inspire other large cities across the country and... a revolutionary movement could manifest nationally. We can end the wars! We can end crony capitalism! We can push back the creeping fascism that is robbing us of our rights and imprisoning people at a rate unprecedented around the globe! Worker's rights is only the issue which opened the door! And now that the door is open... do not let this revolutionary moment pass! Who knows when, or if, we'll ever get another chance like this?!

On Wisconsin!

Subtle Factors of a Global Revolution: From Athens to Cairo to Madison and Beyond

2011-02-21T23:34:00.000-08:00

As someone who has long been involved with revolutionary politics, I find the insurrectionary activities that are currently manifesting around the world to be quite heartening. Have no doubt that the hour is getting late in terms of turning back the tides of environmental degradation, industrial warfare, and the authoritarian subjectification of populations around across globe. Nevertheless, if only for matters of dignity, it will never be too late to take a stand against the oppressive and destructive forces which are laying waste to the world. The intention of this article is to analyze modern revolutionary tendencies and their potential for bringing about fundamental changes to society.

If I may be so bold, so as to substantiate this current analysis, I would like to point out that my analysis written in early December accurately predicted unrest in the Middle East -- well before the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings occurred and well before any widespread tendencies for such activity was broadly acknowledged. In particular... I pointed to Yemen and Saudi Arabia as potential focal points -- but I was generally assessing the revolutionary potential of that particular region of the world. Take that for what it's worth, but I am not the most prolific writer and have been humbled and awed by the events manifesting in that region. In the original draft of this article I had written facetiously of "egg on my face" because it was not Yemen or Saudi Arabia which had yet risen up -- but things have suddenly started to heat up in those locales as well, and I am truly humbled by the courageous actions of the people in that part of the world. I make no claims as a prophet with a crystal ball, but merely as someone who has been paying attention to current events and historical context. My analysis hardly approached the accuracy of a Nostradamus, but who else was truly, and overtly, predicting such events (roughly two months before they happened)?

Perhaps this prefacing reminder is simple vanity, but people seem to have a short memory and often only acknowledge the work of ivory tower academics or prominent celebrity journalists -- while ignoring those of us who have been in the streets and who regularly play a part in promoting radical perspectives. Rarely have I felt so justified in tooting my own horn. So... I beg the forgiveness of any readers for that unbecoming indulgence while I now proceed to the current analysis.

What inspires a protest, a riot, an insurrection, or a revolution?

The last major incident of widespread unrest in the United States was arguably the Rodney King Uprising:

"...sparked on April 29, 1992, when a jury acquitted four white Los Angeles Police Department officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages topped roughly US$1 billion. In all, 53 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured."

The key word in that assessment is "sparked." People across the country were not up in arms because they loved Rodney King so much that this particular injustice drove them into the streets! Rather, it was the systemic injustice which they had all witnessed, experienced, and could relate to on a daily basis. The excessive force applied to Rodney King was a recorded symbol of what could happen, and what had already happened, to countless others. In this case... it turned out to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back -- cities across the U.S. experienced riots. Symbolic sparks like this are almost always present whenever a protest, a riot, an insurrection, or a revolution occurs.

Regarding recent events in the Middle East, it must be acknowledged that the information released by Wikileaks was not the sole reason (or even a central reason) behind the recent revolutionary activity there. Nevertheless, I think strong arguments have been made which suggest that the Cablegate documents did provide clear new insight about the corruption taking place in the region -- and Wikileaks was on the tips of tongues throughout the Mideast. Even amongst dignified populations (as have been revealed in Tunisia and Egypt), a revolution will need more than kindling, more than a fuse, and more than even central issues waiting to explode -- revolutions need sparks. Such sparks are somewhat intangible, and very hard to quantify or measure, but they are necessary. I maintain that Wikileaks created such a spark.

Beyond sparks, the exact conditions which will cause a population to revolt are impossible to specify with perfect accuracy. The various factors leading to an insurrection are infinite and come together in different ways, in different individuals, within different populations, at different times, in differing locales. However, when conditions are just so, and when all the factors combine in the right way... the revolutionary force of humanity is unleashed. The potential energy of this latent force is always present -- and at times like these it becomes obvious and undeniable.

If revolution were a simple matter of dignity -- and if people had a more general intolerance of injustice -- most of human society would already be organized in a fundamentally different manner. If it was simply a matter of meeting basic human needs... class warfare would already be far more noticeable and the poor would be fighting far more ferociously. If it were simply a matter of wanting to be free... police states around the world would never have been allowed to get so out of control in the first place.

The sad fact is... revolutions are not often brought about by the slow degradation of living conditions or the crawl of creeping fascism. Like the proverbial boiling frog, humans are embarrassingly tolerant of slowly lowered standards of living, the slow removal of basic civil liberties, and even the destruction of their home in the biosphere. And, even when we are burdened with these indignities at a more rapid pace... we can still be distracted by the old "bread and circuses" routine.

Have no doubt that modern rulers (leaders only by default) have a keen understanding of these principles regarding mass psychology. Further... technologies for control and distraction are more widely dispersed and more effective than ever.

Humans are the most domesticated of all the animals.

Another factor, which needs much more consideration, is the fact that Homo sapiens simply did not evolve to deal with the extent of the crisis which has been forced upon us in a relatively short amount of time. Remember that 10,000 years (the approximate amount of time which the project of civilization has been underway) is not much time at all in evolutionary terms. And the conditions of civilization have changed more in the last 100 years than in the previous 10,000. For most of humankind's existence we have not had to deal with traffic jams in urban populations. We have not previously had to deal with e-waste, a surveillance state, the threats of nuclear waste & fallout, global warming, an oceanic garbage vortex, water shortages, et cetera.

This is to say nothing of the sudden shift in the structure of our social arrangements. The breakdown of the extended and, now, even the nuclear family -- for example. The idea of sending the kids off to school while you head to the cubicle or assembly line is a fairly recent development in terms of evolutionary behavior -- and the efficacy of such behavior is far from proven to be beneficial for any involved. Even if you believe in the myth of a stark hierarchical power difference between a primitive chieftain and the rest of the tribe... it's nothing compared to the inequality between some corporate CEOs and their employees on sweatshop assembly lines! It's nothing compared to the difference between the inner-city cop and the inner-city youth. It's nothing compared to the difference between the U.S. Department of Defense and the innocent civilian populations around the world who get destroyed in unnecessary imperialistic wars. (According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross... since the mid 20th century, modern means of warfare have killed 10 civilians for each military casualty.)

The causes and need for revolt are relatively new in the grand scheme of things while, at the same time, generations of humans have slowly been conditioned to tolerate the increasing burdens which generally threaten their ways of life. Homo sapiens are the most domesticated of animals -- and domestication usually implies docility and/or obedience. However, somewhat paradoxically, it is the educated and cultured amongst us who are most likely to recognize the full extent of the threats facing humanity. Continuing with this line of thought, but more to the point... will those who recognize the multitude of threats be able to effectively organize and fight back against those who have been trained and conditioned for violence and obedience? That last question begs another...

Who is it that the human police dogs obey -- and how did those abusive masters gain control of their pets?!

It may seem tangential, but I feel that the human species was something of an aberration. Their success thus far has arguably been the result of an obsessive-compulsive technological mindset and a potentially related tendency towards violence (demonstrably more violent than other species). It has been suggested by modern anthropologists that Homo sapiens were not the most intellectually developed members of the Homo genus when they appeared on the Earth. Rather, they may have simply had longer legs, higher levels of testosterone, and more violent tendencies than the Neanderthals (who had already been making use of advanced linguistic abilities and simple tools). So, despite an inferior intellect, Homo sapiens, with their obsessive compulsive proclivity to make sharper spears (along with more of an inclination to rape and pillage), may have wiped the Neanderthals out. In any event... these characteristics often appear to be prevalent in modern Homo sapiens.

Admittedly, the speculative ideas presented in that last paragraph can be debated (or even dismissed entirely). And since I'm not trying to make modern humanity seem irredeemable (everyone on every continent comes from the same genetic stock), the question more appropriately should become... why do the worst among us -- the most violent and domineering -- rise to positions of power and influence? If human society thrives on the basis of mutual aid and cooperation, how did we get to the full-spectrum crisis which we are now presented? The answer which seems most valid to me is explained by the science of ponerology.

In general terms... the idea of ponerology suggests that psychopathic tendencies are a genetic defect which appear naturally in about one percent of any given population (regardless or race, location, or social structure). Traits of the psychopathic condition include the inability to feel empathy or to have true sympathetic concerns for others. On the contrary, sadism is far more likely to appear in psychopaths. But while some sadistic psychopaths are revealed in the form of serial killers (or as lesser sadists), others exist in more functional and socially influential roles. This latter group operates in a Machiavellian manner by their very nature. They accumulate wealth and power easily because there is nothing they won't do to achieve their goals (and some of them do get exposed). However, because cold-blooded acts and bald-faced lies are not the social norm, it sometimes becomes inconceivably difficult for others to recognize what these individuals are doing. Ergo... people found Ted Bundy charming and friendly while others believed that Hitler couldn't really have meant all of the things he proposed. Along similar lines, if one looked into it, they could probably find countless examples of successful businessmen throughout history who were willing to do anything to get ahead. And the rest of the populace trusts in these people because they are successfully discreet and effective at getting what they personally want.

The relevance of these ideas becomes apparent when one considers any, or perhaps all, of the modern world leaders. The depths of their corruption never seems to be fully plumbed. Around the world it is the same story about how oppressive, cruel, and shortsighted most world leaders are. As wars rage, and as the biosphere collapses, it's amazing that these people never seem to take a truly meaningful moral stance. They have power... but the bombs still fall, famines continue, resources are extracted, pollution accumulates, and these people only become more wealthy and prestigious.

Worse still is the influence which these world leaders (again, only by default) have on their populations. When they have seized the technological podium of modern mass communications... they are effectively presented as reasonable and well-intentioned people. And this prestigious presentation of psychopathic ideas has a psychological effect on the rest of society -- creating cognitive dissonance about their leaders and their best interests. In the U.S., for example, we are still told that we're free despite the fact that more people in are imprisoned per-capita (and in total numbers) than in any other nation in the world. Statistically, in per-capita numbers, police in this country kill more people than the Egyptian police did under Mubarak. And, if you want to talk about torture, imprisonment is quite exactly that. But the mainstream media, propped up by THE PATHOCRACY, always misdirects the local population with the idea of external threats (real or imagined) and coaxes them into continued support for further atrocities.

Regarding the use of cutting-edge technology for such purposes... it perhaps ought to be remembered that Adolf Hitler was the first person featured in a live international television broadcast (opening the 1936 Olympics in Berlin). This is a very obvious example of a corrupt regime using cutting edge media technology, but the same principle had already been put into place -- and has certainly been utilized to this very day.

Beyond the media being used to legitimize wars or corrupt social regimes, modern humanity has been conditioned in far more subtle ways (that may prove to be at least as harmful). I won't reiterate the various social changes that may have altered and manipulated the consciousness of modern humanity, but I will quote Mark Twain: "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." I always remember this quote when confronted with the popular ideas that property is sacrosanct, agriculture is benign, and technology is neutral.

So... after power has been centralizing for thousands of years; after a dramatic shift away from relatively sustainable human societies; after being manipulated by modern forms of media; and after another probable evolutionary shift in the last 10,000 years; why would humanity revolt? How can humanity revolt? Is it even possible for humanity to revolt? Can those who recognize the modern crisis overcome the psychopaths who have seized power, the masses who unwittingly empower them, and the human attack dogs who obediently follow the orders of their psychopathic masters?

Can a broadly comprehensive revolution occur in the modern world?

The necessary cultural shift -- the fundamental change necessary for human survival -- is not guaranteed to occur. However, it is the position of this article that such a revolutionary shift is possible. The need for such a fundamental revolution is already recognized by a few and, to some extent, steps toward the shift are being taken.

The key may be to connect seemingly disparate and widespread uprisings so that the participants can see that all of our struggles are actually connected -- despite the artificial lines (such as nationality, race, and religion) which are used to keep us apart. And this has already been happening (to an extent) as some modern communication techniques have, at least temporarily and partially, come out from the control of the pathocrats. I refuse to overstate how much of a role social media has played in recent events, but I can not be as dismissive as some have been. Uprisings around the world have been connected around the world (despite language barriers) and the causes, the hopes, the dreams, and the solidarity of people everywhere has been shown.

As Egyptians rose up, many Americans (and the international community) offered, at least, our moral support. When the U.S. President Barack Obama initially supported the dictator Mubarak, it had to be clear to him that this was quite an unpopular action. Simultaneously, the public interest in Egypt demanded that journalists from this country cover the events of the revolution. Further... the people of this country would not morally condone the abuse of American journalists any more than the abuse of Egyptian journalists. On top of that all, or underlying it, we had the social media resources to reveal much of the falsification that the mainstream corporate media tried to present to us. When the politicians here supported the dictators there... they were revealed for what they were -- and many of us sided, in varying tangible degrees, with the people of Egypt.

Now... fast forward a few weeks to the largest labor protest in years taking place in Madison Wisconsin. Although the comparison on placards was sometimes derided... the comparison between the Egyptian President Mubarak and the corrupt Governor Scott Walker was accurately made. Of course the issues involved are not exactly the same... but both of those politicians were beholden to corporate interests and the police state. Both politicians were behaving in as corrupt a manner as they thought they could get away with. Both were diminishing the power and influence of regular people while promoting their own self-interests and the corrupt interests of other wealthy individuals. In any event... the people of the Egypt became aware of the struggles of the people in Wisconsin. And, in a watershed moment, pizza was ordered locally, from a call made in Egypt, to feed the people who were camping in the state Capitol. Such a seemingly token act of solidarity should not be taken for granted. It became apparent that many of us are aware, at least to some extent, of the struggles taking place around the world. The Egyptians realized we were in solidarity with them, and they, in turn, showed some solidarity with the people in Wisconsin.

Similarly... there have been connections made between the struggles in Greece, London, Libya, Bahrain, and beyond. We are all being made aware that the prominent political leaders around the world are all thoroughly corrupt. Beyond that... we're observing and learning various protest tactics from our brothers and sisters around the world. So, for example, the people in Greece are now considering the tactic of holding a key area of Athens in much the same way that Egyptians held Tahrir Square in Cairo.

Furthermore, we can see how key struggles are directly connected across international lines. To give another example from Madison... it's been suggested that bringing home 151 Wisconsin soldiers from Afghanistan would more than pay for Wisconsin's supposed "budget crisis" (while ending the war altogether would save Wisconsin $1.7 billion dollars). And how much of a threat has the Al Queda bogeyman really ever posed to Wisconsin? And how would that justify killing Afghanistan civilians in the first place?!

Beyond international solidarity, local issues must be looked at as a collective whole. The same government in Wisconsin which is now threatening the collective bargaining rights of unions has also presided over the creation of the most racist prison system in the United States. More minorities are imprisoned in Wisconsin, per capita, than in any other state. And the system which has allowed both these injustices to manifest is also the same system which allowed Madison's water supply to be contaminated by the 4th highest levels of Chromium 6 in the United States. These may all seem like unrelated issues... but these are all realities which have been brought about by a system which has obviously not functioned well for a long time. It is imperative that all these issues be looked at collectively -- otherwise people will only end up hacking at Thoreau's "branches of evil" while the root of the problem continues to thrive. And, mind you, I've been writing about Madison Wisconsin -- regularly voted as one of the best places to live in the United States!

Whose side are you on?

A lot of people promote pacifism, and a non-violent revolution would be ideal. While I personally was once something of a firebrand, I haven't directly participated in violent or illegal protest for over a decade. I simply don't have the stomache for it anymore and I'm not cut out for it. The vast majority of my political activities I would now consider to be wholly non-violent (and I fully expect them to continue being so). Nevertheless... I will not condemn those who have had their lives wrecked and then choose to fight back against the system. I wouldn't even condemn a vanguard who fought on their behalf -- because we are all in this mess together.

So, for example, let's think about an individual in Madison Wisconsin who quite possibly may have lost a brother in Afghanistan, whose uncle was incarcerated for a trumped-up drug offense, whose father drank too much of the carcinogenic water, and whose mother might now lose her job with the state. If such an individual smashed a window at the bank which foreclosed on his grandmother... I would not condemn them.

First of all, I don't consider the destruction of non-sentient (or non-essential) property to be violent. Secondly... I wouldn't condemn this individual even if they resisted arrest for their action. The real crime is the injustice of the system and the person disrupting "business as usual" is not the villain. On the contrary, it is the person who perpetuates and protects this corrupt order of things that is really the violent criminal. Those who get this backward are the same individuals who perpetuate the Orwellian ideas that war=peace, freedom=slavery, and Big Brother loves you.

On a related note, while others have had much to say on this subject, a particular phenomenon at recent protests in America should be mentioned... Some protesters have served the role of the "peace police." They preach non-violence, and demand peaceful protest in accordance with the constraints of "their" protest (over which they feel complete ownership), but they are quick to point out to the authorities (or even help subdue) anyone else who may be engaged in any illegal protest activity. Non-violence is only demanded of their fellow protesters and they are very quick to justify, tolerate, or even assist the violence of the police -- who are the ones overwhelmingly engaged in violent activity during recent protests. Those people who claim to be non-violent and then assist the state with violent actions are amongst the worst types of hypocrites. They are like lapdogs who serve their masters with barking in much the same way that the attack dogs in riot gear do.

Also, there seems to be much cognitive dissonance about the violence of contemporary (and historical) revolutionary struggles. For example... many people people credit the success of the civil rights movement in the United States, and the struggle for Indian independence from Britain, solely to the non-violent efforts of people like Martin Luther King & Mohandas Gandhi. The reality is that there were widespread militant riots during both of their respective movements -- and that certainly played a part in the repressive authoritarian regimes modifying their positions. Similarly, some people seem to believe that the recent revolutionary activity in Egypt was non-violent -- but the documented reality of events shows something very different. The uprising in Egypt began on January 25, 2011 on a national holiday which Mubarak had instituted a couple years earlier as National Police Day. On the 26th, police stations started to burn. Throughout the revolt, many of the police forces in Egypt were overwhelmed by masses of protesters. The idea that it was a non-violent revolution merely conforms to the church & state-approved methods of how a revolution should be conducted. They want the masses to believe that non-violently is the only way for a revolution to succeed -- but the details of history paint a much different picture.

In any event... you need to ask yourself -- whose side are you on? Are you serving the interests of your family and community? Are you on the side of innocent civilians around the globe? Or, are you on the side of the psychopathic state and the corrupt system which is laying waste to everything in it's path?

Closing Thoughts

Previously I've submitted some ideas about how I think a revolutionary community could be maintained in the United States, and I stand by those suggestions. But at this time I'd just like to urge the general public to become slightly more involved in basic revolutionary struggles. I realize that not everyone, including myself, can always be on the front lines of the struggle. But we can at least try to stay abreast of developing events around the world and, at least in spirit, we can try to support contemporary revolutionaries.

Also... my earlier statements in this article were not at all intended to be entirely dismissive of non-violent revolutionary actions. On the contrary, I think such tactics could be highly effective, or at least pragmatically useful, if they were broadly utilized. My major issue with the modern proponents of such tactics is that they are often inconsistent, sometimes hypocritical, and apparently not willing to make the deep sacrifices that effective ahimsa requires. Few seem willing to do anything even as pedestrian as, say, blocking traffic -- and few things today seem to compare to the Freedom Riders or Gandhian tactics of the past. In fact, non-violence is often conflated with legality when it should be remembered that MLK & Gandhi were both, technically, criminals (according to the state).

Finally, I would like to apologize again for any potential arrogance or presumptuousness on my part. I realize that my perspective is not complete, my analysis sometimes has flaws, and there may even be mistakes with my grammar or spelling. But I strongly wish to encourage discussion about the ideas presented in this article and would be more than willing to have a dialogue with people on the forums at Infoshop News, Anarchist News, and/or via Twitter.

For A Revolutionary Uprising,

Nihilo Zero

A Brief Comment on The Protest In Wisconsin: General Strike or Get Off The Walker!

2011-02-16T23:06:00.000-08:00

The biggest American labor protest in years is currently taking place in Madison Wisconsin. Although it would undoubtedly be getting more coverage if it were another inane Tea Party rally, the mainstream media is starting to cover the event which has already seen a second day of protest (with 13,000 protesters at the Capitol building on Wednesday the 16th) to coincide with a strike by the local teachers union (which shut down the local school district). People are camping at the Capitol tonight and Thursday is certain to see large numbers out protesting again. The new Governor, Scott Walker, has already threatened to call in the National Guard to quell any potential disturbance to business as usual.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that people are reading the situation incorrectly (in terms of Governor Walker having made a political blunder by aggressively attempting to gut worker's rights so early in his term). Perhaps he has blundered, and maybe he is the naive idiot which he seems to be, but his move may have been very calculated -- and the labor unions may end up getting suckered. By making such an extreme proposal in the legislative terms which he has laid out... he is now in position to pull back from the legislation and appear to be moderating his position. So the workers would then still end up taking a big hit but, because it's no longer quite so devastating in it's effect, the unions may be somewhat placated by the toned-down legislation -- and thus they might be likely to give up a little ground while thinking they've won the larger battle. It's basic politics and Walker has put himself in a position to win either way. If there was no protest, Walker would get everything his right-wing heart desired. Since there has now been a protest... Walker can tone down the extremist legislation and appear to be somewhat reasonable as the legislation is modified from being terrible to merely awful.

As this proposed legislation has energized labor unions more than anything else in recent years... they should make a point of not wasting the current opportunity they've created with their protest. Rather than accepting a toned down version of the legislation, or even a complete scrapping of it, they should be the ones demanding concessions at this point! They should be demanding even more labor rights and the right to organize more easily. It's as simple as that. Labor has held, and does hold, most of the cards in modern society. If they choose to shut the city down, or even the entire state, there is little that can be done about it. And then how will Governor Walker react? It's quite possible that the National Guard, made up of workers, won't carry out his orders.

So my advice to the Wisconsin workers is this... General strike or get off the Walker! If you accept any concessions with the currently proposed legislation you'll be opening the door for further concessions -- you'll be practically asking for them. What you need to do is show the Governor who is really the boss in Wisconsin -- the people, the workers, the everyday Jane & Joe. You have the power and the ball is in your court -- what are you going to do with it?

Toronto G20: Will Police Be Held Accountable After Scathing Ombudsman's Report?

2011-01-24T19:59:00.000-08:00

An important video from the Real News Network @ TheRealNews.Com

Wikileaks, Julian Assange & Modern Anarchist Praxis

2010-12-02T04:45:00.000-08:00

Most people could probably not name very many anarchists -- historical, contemporary, or even fictional. A few might cite artists like George Orwell or Leo Tolstoy, and fewer still will be aware of prominent historical anarchists like Emma Goldman or Peter Kropotkin. The historical impact of anarchist practice has largely been glossed over in the curriculum of government run, and compulsory, public schools. People generally aren't aware of anarchists fighting for the first labor rights in America or giving the first public talks on birth control. People are unaware that it was the anarchists who brought about the Russian revolution which was subsequently derailed by the Bolsheviks. People are largely unaware of historical anarchist movements in Spain, the Ukraine, and elsewhere. As for contemporaries... most people might only be able to name Noam Chomsky as an anarchist (and that is probably something of a misnomer).

But now... in the headlines of all the world's newspapers, on the lips of all the television pundits, all over the internet, and in the running for Time magazine's "Person of the Year," we have Julian Assange. One may argue about whether or not he precisely fits into the definition of what an anarchist is, and some dyed-in-the-wool anarchists will perhaps turn up their noses at the suggestion, but Julian Assange is engaged in anarchist acts and has presented governments around the world with damning attacks against their credibility and legitimacy.

He is one of the founders, and the public face, of Wikileaks (which publicly leaks damning internal documents from governments and corporations from around the world). With that tool he has thereby presented one of the biggest contemporary challenges to the continuation of state power. In theory, by the nature and design of the Wikileaks project, no national authorities with any degree of power are safe from exposure and subsequent public scrutiny. If that isn't a threat to corporatism and centralized governing power... nothing is. And while that alone isn't enough to make Assange an anarchist, the Wikileaks organization is intentionally designed to exist outside, and in spite of, the control of all nation states. Furthermore, in his own words, "leaking is basically an anarchist act." His organization, and his personal actions, are overtly in support of anarchist acts! At the very least... his tireless devotion to freedom of speech, and his intense scrutiny of governing bodies, is anarchistic at its core -- because most modern governments and major corporations could arguably not exist if people were fully aware of what the leaders of those institutions were actually doing.

The Truth Will Set Us Free (regardless of national identity, religion, or social status)

What the specific long-term effects of the Wikileaks project will be is uncertain. However, in any case, it's certain to increase skepticism of, and disdain for, centralized national governments. Simply in it's exposure of the injustices of war, Wikileaks strikes a blow at a core pillar of state power and control. Further, in militarized cities domestically, even the local police forces would have a harder time maintaining their power if all their corruption was laid bare. And as state power weakens, anarchist practices will fill the vacuum.

Earlier in this essay was mentioned the historical impact of anarchist ideals and practice. That praxis cuts across many of the differences that modern states and figures of authority have used to divide the masses. This is because the common person (regardless of race, religion, or creed) does not wish for wars, or prisons, or opulence in the face of poverty. But those in power require these elements to be in place so that they can maintain their control over the various populations.

Consequently... false ideas of racial, religious, and national inequality are instilled and maintained by the governing institutions. At their core, however, most people around the world value anarchistic ideals. Even the masses of religiously-minded people are not usually at odds with the principles of anarchism. The Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu who identified himself as an anarchist. The Christian ideal of Jesus Christ is fundamentally anarchist in his earthly habits. Lao Tzu (author of the Tao Te Ching and originator of Taoism), practically made a religion of anarchism. And the list of anarchistic saints could surely go on across many other cultures and religions.

One needn't totally agree with the pacifism of those spiritual anarchists to recognize that their anarchistic ideals resonate with many people across most cultures of the world. The point is... many people already value anarchistic ideals but are nevertheless controlled and manipulated by people who have polar opposite values. And it may not be the pacifism of the aforementioned religious figures that enthralls people but, rather, their sense of basic justice. That's why archetypes like Robin Hood, for example, are also held in high regard. And, when it comes down to it, all of humanity descended from, in the not-so-distant past, relatively egalitarian and peaceful primitive tribes. The majority of humanity has the same underlying values, buried in the very needs of our existence, but we have been manipulated, domesticated, and made subservient to those who do not have our best interests at heart.

So... how does this all relate to Wikileaks?! Well... take a look at the situation in the Mideast. Citizens of Saudi Arabia, for better or worse, are loyal to the Islamic faith. And the majority of those Saudis will subsequently identify with their fellow Muslims on a basic human level. How do you expect them to react to the information that the Saudi Royal family has been encouraging the U.S. and Israel to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran?! Not only is this warmongering, but it's blasphemous warmongering! And while your agnostic author here isn't at all trying to support the idea blasphemy, the underlying ethical transgression is one of hypocrisy. The Royal family is ostensibly supposed to be pious. They mandate burqas be worn by Saudi women and they violently enforce religious laws onto the population of the nation they rule. But now, that government, the royal family, is exposed plainly as blasphemously flaunting the very laws they violently enforce on others. Even if it was already somewhat suspected, when the communiques urging support for an Israeli & U.S. strike against Iran reaches the Saudi masses... the Saudi Arabian government will weaken. Perhaps it won't weaken to the point where it immediately transforms into a secular anarchist utopia, but as pointed out earlier... as state power weakens, anarchist practices will fill the vacuum.

Also relevant to people of the Mid-East, other released documents reveal that the Yemeni government took responsibility for air-strikes that caused civilian deaths in their execution against militants -- but it was actually the U.S. government carrying out the strikes. And while on a practical level of reason it shouldn't really matter who was responsible for the deaths of innocent men, women, and children... this cover-up for the American attacks will not instill trust in Yemen citizens for their government. Unlike in Saudi Arabia however, the religious element is not even necessary for Yemenis to be outraged at this deception.

International Relationships, International Revelations & International Revolution

The globally unifying aspect of the latest batch of "Cablegate" documents released by Wikileaks is in the fact that citizens from dozens of countries, all around the world, are finding out for the first time (or having it formally confirmed) that all of their respective governments are thoroughly corrupt. What do the citizens of the U.S. Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, et al, have in common? All of their governments are thoroughly corrupt and acting at the expense of human life whenever it suits them. Power, wherever it is, corrupts -- and those who are the most corrupt rise to the highest levels of power.

The average person does not want war! The average person does not want financial corruption while others starve! The average person is not a bald-faced hypocrite & liar! But the government leaders, all over the globe, have been shown to be what the average people are not. Nobility is not noble! Government diplomats are not diplomatic! People around the globe are being systematically lied to, abused, and even killed, by their supposed leaders. It's a common string that ties the vast majority of modern humanity together. And this is being confirmed, the world over, at the same time, thanks to Julian Assange & Wikileaks. How can one fail to see the revolutionary potential in this circumstance?

One might worry that these leaks could weaken international relations to the point of war. But the fact is... international relations are already at the point of war. And while some obedient citizens may remain loyal to their governments, many others are no longer going to be so eager to fight and die for the interests of their disgraced leaders.

Rather, what logically may happen, is that people will be less tolerant of militaristic sabre-rattling from their supposed leaders. If we look again at the situation in Saudi Arabia, we might even find that the revelations from the leaked documents could actually prevent war! This is because, if Iran is now attacked by the U.S. or Israel, the people of Saudi Arabia very well might rise up and overthrow the Saudi royal family. Such an event is hardly unprecedented historically. Furthermore... the U.S. can not risk social unrest in Saudi Arabia because of the energy needs met by Saudi Arabian oil. At best, the U.S. government (to say nothing of the Saudi Royal family) can only hope that civil unrest does not get out of control without an attack on Iran.

Similarly, in the U.S., the the Cablegate documents are not going to ease the governments ability to sell a war to the American population. Some will still be willing to go kill and die in a desert halfway around the globe, but that number of volunteers will undoubtedly be fewer because of the revelations from the State Department's leaked documents. Rather, thanks to Wikileaks, a protest movement is likely to be much stronger in the United States if another war is now proposed.

Some might ask, "What will the people of the world do if they rise up and start to abolish their governments?" And, truthfully, there is no easy answer to that. Obviously, systems of social organization will have to be arranged with much greater checks on any potentially abused power. Things may be rough, and conflicts will still arise.

Although it's probably somewhat hackneyed, I liken the situation of citizens with their governments to a person in a marriage with an abusive spouse. It may not be be easy to leave -- friends or a family support network may have faded, there may be kids, and the abuser may have all the money. Nevertheless... I would strongly be in favor of the abused spouse trying to get out of their current situation by any means necessary. And if they took it upon themselves to take that first necessary action to become free... they may just find some community support from a surprising number of others who stand by their action. But the real joke is... that formerly abused spouse wouldn't have to get remarried! Despite how odd it may seem... they could even become polyamorous or celibate! The point being -- their new way of life would really not have to be at all like the way things were. So, if people got rid of their government, they wouldn't have to replace it with anything at all similar. I don't suggest it will be easy, but people of the world need to get out of their abusive relationships.

In anticipation of the smug postmodern pseudo-intellectual who is not satisfied with that previous paragraph... let me just say that there are million other social arrangements that could be infinitely better than what we currently have with the militaristic consumerism of the modern corporate state.

This article is not about presenting a specific blueprint for a revolution or a post-revolutionary society. Rather, this article is about the current socio-economic state of the world, the opportunity manifested by Wikileaks, and the potential for revolution in a world that is rife with war, starvation, and ecological devastation that threatens life on Earth. People are already rising up in revolt, even in relatively wealthy western nations, and the Wikileaks revelations add to the critical mass of frustration that may, quite possibly, lead to a flashpoint that manifests into an unprecedented global revolution. You can try to remain purely skeptical and indifferent, or you can think about and work towards positive social change. That's for everyone to decide on an individual basis.

Some Closing Thoughts

As per my wont, I am not going to close out this article neatly and in summation. This author will not pretend that the words just typed will necessarily touch the hearts and minds of any readers. I am not going to pretend that I have summed everything up with perfect tidiness. Although this article is sincere, and indicative of some personal hope, it was partially written for my personal need to communicate, to share ideas, and to simply try to spur on some discussion. And really... I wanted to lay out my admiration for the work done by Julian Assange and the people working for Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is an amazing and unprecedented service. I'm not sure how long it will last, and I could potentially see a similar system of communication someday being used to spread dangerous technologies. Nevertheless, for the little it's worth, I must salute Wikileaks for what it's done and I revel in the dedication and effort that must have gone into making this system work. The subtleties and intricacies of the computer programming are far beyond anything I'd ever want to involve myself with. The personal risks that Julian Assange and Bradley Manning have taken are... preeminently courageous. Let us not lose sight of the fact that their lives are being threatened for this project which has revealed many great truths to people around the world.

Bradley Manning (who allegedly procured and leaked the U.S. State Department documents for the Cablegate release) sits in the Marine Corps Brig at Quantico and faces up to 52 years of imprisonment. Julian Assange is currently on the Interpol's most wanted list over obviously manufactured accusations of rape in Sweden. Even in the likely event those charges get dropped, if he is brought into Swedish custody he will likely then be extradited to the U.S.A. where he will potentially face death penalty charges under the Espionage Act of 1917.

It is my hope in writing this that I can somehow make their risks slightly more worthwhile by potentially bringing their stories, and a constructive analysis of their work, to a few people who may have otherwise missed some of the subtle implications. The whole of humanity has been presented with a good opportunity to make revolutionary changes on a global scale, in large part thanks to the work of these individuals. I hope we can live up to the fertile revolutionary moment that Wikileaks has presented us.

Chris Hedges advocates monkeywrenching?!

2010-11-28T06:47:00.000-08:00

I stand by my criticism of Hedges for a previous article he wrote, but I've always been a fan of his work. And this time I think he's managed to hit one out of the park with his most recent Op-Ed for Truthdig: Power and the Tiny Acts of Rebellion.

At the very least, this article will make you think. And if more prominent lefties start moving in a more radical direction like Hedges has... human beings might not wipe themselves out after all.

He offers a somber and sobering look at humanity's current situation and he calls for acts of resistance to take place for the sake of personal dignity and a sense of self-respect -- if nothing else. He's not terribly explicit with his calls for sabotage in the closing paragraph, but it does seem to subtly appear in the text -- and that's a rarity for this time and place (as most prominent academics and journalists are only covering their own asses and trying to make a buck). Check the article out and see what you think he's getting at. It seems fairly obvious and quite aggressive to me.

Kudos to Chris Hedges for another excellent piece!

A powerful anti-war video!

2010-10-31T02:11:00.000-07:00

MUST SEE! Please forward, share, tweet, and so on! This is the sort of video that may actually help bring about some much needed change.

A small part of what it is that inspires my political/philosophical worldview...

2010-10-31T01:42:00.000-07:00

(The following statements [backed up with linked citations], were given as response to a comment on Reddit which reached the front page of the "best of" subreddit. Since I took the time to spell it out and dig up the links... I thought I'd repost it here as a reminder to my readers of some of the things which I feel are fairly important. Most of these issues won't come as a surprise to anyone, but it's amazing how easy it is to forget about them as we go about our mundane daily lives.)

Almost one in seven people alive today is malnourished.

Hundreds of millions work as veritable slaves (not counting actual slaves) in sweatshops and mines for a mere pittance that barely sustains them.

Worldwide, two billion people still have no access to clean water, and water contaminated by sewage is estimated to kill 3.4 million, including two million children, every year.

Devastating wars rage not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in forgotten and overlooked places like the Congo.

Nuclear weapons proliferation continues as more and more nations improve and gain access to preeminently destructive nuclear weapons. It's not out of the question to think that they may someday fall into the hands of a totalitarian dictator or religious zealots.

The Earth is currently experiencing the most devastating period of mass extinction since the dinosaurs died off. And it is occurring because of the way that modern industrial humans live.

According to preeminent world scientists... global warming is already having noticeable effects and negative feedback loops suggest that the problem will continue to get worse beyond end-of-the-century predictions.

And while it's nice to think that human civilization has moved beyond serfdom... 1% of the worlds population owns 40% of the assets. And how many of the supposedly well-off middle class is deep in debt?

Nearly 2 million U.S. citizens are imprisoned at any given time with nearly 10 million people getting cycled through the prison-industrial complex each year. Most of the in prison are there for non-violent drug crimes.

You can try to ignore these issues (which will eventually catch up with us all) and you can play up the supposed hardships of sustainable primitive societies (much like the genocidal Andrew Jackson did [re: the U.S. $20 bill]) when they were actually living peaceful lives without the stresses of modern life until the westerners invaded -- but ignoring or misrepresenting all this doesn't change the reality of the past or the present.

You don't have to be a Chomsky to know that something is seriously wrong with modern society.

On voting...

2010-10-28T16:01:00.000-07:00

There have been several articles written about the futility or the negative consequences of voting. But I wanted to put forward some of my thoughts about electoral politics. I do want to point out that I'm not taking an extremely hardline position against voting. There may be a time and a place for voting -- but I don't see it as particularly useful on the national level.

Key Issues

Foremostly... I don't see many candidates (at all) talking about many very key issues. For example, I don't see many candidates talking about curbing consumerism. Rather, most of them talk about "strengthening our industrial base" or "creating jobs" or "meeting our energy needs" to further promote consumption. And, realistically, those are the only candidates who have any chance of being elected -- because of the typical mindset of American voters, the mainstream media's influence, and because of the campaign funds such candidates will receive from corporate interests who promote issues which aren't in the best interests of the general public.

I could go on with various issues which I don't see being adequately addressed, but the point isn't necessarily that all of those issues aren't always addressed. Rather... I don't want to promote or support any candidate who promotes or supports any very negative aspect. Supposing a candidate did have some relatively favorable positions... I still wouldn't want to support them if they promoted any number of negative issues -- and I don't think it behooves anyone to support a candidate who promotes anything that may come back to seriously bite us all on the ass. The "lesser of two evils" may likely turn out to be pretty destructive to either our health or our liberty. To acquiesce to any particular evil is to support it.

Another issue that many have with voting is that supports the destructive system overall. Supposing that you find a supposedly decent candidate who champions many of the issues and projects you support... this candidate's token participation in congress (or the senate or the parliament or whatever) would only legitimize that governing body which has proven itself to be highly corrupt, wasteful and detrimental to all life. I don't support the authority of the larger ruling body, so why would I support one candidate who will likely prove to be ineffectual or just plain corrupt? And then, after electing such a candidate, the media and other supporters of the system will claim that the aforementioned issues have a voice in the governing body -- when really it may be just a squeak. And we desperately need much more than mere voices and words.

Authoritarian Right-Wing Backlash

Then there is the problem of a potential backlash. Suppose, in some unlikely way, that a majority of the representatives, or even a president, strongly supported environmental issues and curbing consumption. The simple reality is, if that happened, and if they enacted pro-environmental/anti-consumption policies, the economy would collapse. The modern economy is driven by waste and consumption. If that were to change, even over the course of a decade, there would be serious repercussions to our way of life. And, in the immediate aftermath, if property is still not equitably shared, and if the police forces are not reigned in... there will be great suffering amongst the masses far and wide.

If the system somehow survived the collapse (without splitting into several smaller nations)... because of the subsequent discontent it's very possible that a pro-corporate right-wing candidate would garner strong support and take office in the next term. It may be a matter of some lack of faith, but I'm not convinced that most people would really be able to recognize how their problems stem from the underlying system -- and I worry they would react within that system to undo what actually may be progress.

This may be underestimating people or overstating things, but the fickle nature of the people, along with those who are just stubbornly authoritarian and reactionary, should not be overlooked. At this point we will potentially see serious clashes between those who value freedom and sustainability versus those who value profit, power, and the destruction of anything as long it will bring them personal gain. If the clash doesn't rise up to the level of a civil war then, in America, we may see the rise of a fascist movement like that which occurred in Germany, Italy, and Spain during the 1930's. And the U.S. has, quite arguably, already taken many steps in that direction.

These paragraphs about a potential backlash may or may not be overstating things, but I'd caution against being too dismissive of the possibility and I'll remind the dear reader that it's not the primary argument for not voting within the current system -- it's simply a thought experiment.

Vote with your feet! Take to the Streets!

The long and the short of it is that we need fundamental change that is not likely come about by voting every couple years. We need to not only reduce the power and legitimacy of centralized government, but we need to change our underlying values as a society. And we need dramatic changes right away -- we need to force the warmongers and the pro-corporate anti-environmentalists to change their behavior. One of the few ways I can see doing this is by taking to the streets, en masse, to stop business as usual and demand immediate and serious reform against various banking and oil corporations, the military industrial complex, and the prison-industrial complex.

Some may ask, "If you can't get people to vote, how would you expect to get them to protest or be part of a general strike?" But I suggest that taking to the streets is more inspirational and offers more hope than voting. As it is, most people don't vote because they know it's a futile act, or they are generally apathetic, or they have been disenfranchised (re: millions of Americans with felonies). But taking to the streets in an act of solidarity with some clear messages... offers inspiring hope for all who might participate or witness such an action. And don't forget... such things have happened in the past -- in the USA and around the world.

Short of this sort of bold and courageous action on the part of the masses... we will get watered-down, piecemeal, regressive, and ineffectual responses to serious growing problems.

Some Basic Social Media Recommendations

2010-10-26T02:50:00.000-07:00

For those of you interested in the issues I often write about (see the tags in the lower left hand column), I'd strongly recommend trying to network a little more by following, subscribing, and linking to other blogs and sites that you feel others should see. Linking (wherever you can -- Facebook, your blog, del.icio.us, stumbleupon, etc.) and subscribing to various blogs can help them immensely in many subtle ways.

In particular, I'd like to recommend trying out (perhaps for the second time), Reddit.com & Twitter.com. The latter takes a little more work to really get the information flowing, but both can be used very effectively to find and distribute good information. I'll try to describe them both and provide some ideas about how to make them easier to use.

Reddit has recently taken over Digg as the preeminent social media news site. Reddit basically works by people voting up or down articles and comments so that they rise or fall in visibility depending upon how worthwhile the community deems the submitted article or comment. The real beauty of Reddit is that you can customize your personal homepage so that when you log in you can see posts of particular interest to you based upon the "subreddits" which you've assigned to your front page with a simple click. For example... my favorite subreddit is called "Bad Cop No Donut" which presents daily reports about police brutality and corruption. Subreddits are presented with the /r/ addition to the reddit.com domain as in the following example: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

Without subscribing to the subreddits you'll have to sift through some less edifying (and plainly silly) nonsense... so Reddit is good for finding entertaining links and light-hearted videos if that's what you're in the mood for.

As a final word on Reddit... if you use a Firefox web browser then you can install some extensions to potentially make Reddit function in a customizable manner.

On to Twitter... Twitter may not be what you think it is -- even if you've already tried it before. Part of the problem with Twitter may be the way that tweets appear in the timelines of many users -- as simply generic links and hashtags. But with very little tweaking you can get videos, photos, and processed links to appear in your timeline -- and that might make it much more palatable to many people. First and foremost... the one thing that I know which helps in these terms is a Firefox add-on called "Power Twitter." There may also be extensions for Chrome or Internet Explorer, but I don't really use those browsers very much at all.

Next... I'd suggest possibly using a proxy site to filter your twitter activity. I've just started using a site called "Hootsuite" and it's significantly streamlined my twitter use. Check it out here: http://hootsuite.com/

In many ways, twitter is what you make of it. It's best if you put in some time making some connections, but it's also potentially a good source of information if you just want to follow a few people and then maybe retweet some links to various articles, videos, or comments they post. The main thing is... you are not going to start communicating with all sorts of people right away. You'll have to follow some interesting people, re-tweet the best of their posts, and then post some good stuff on your own. A lot of sites offer some sort of a tweet feature on various articles so you just have to click that and then you can edit the post and share it as you see fit. Google Reader has also incorporated an easy way to share articles you find in your RSS feeds.

So if you try some of these things out and give Twitter a look... eventually you might find some good people to follow for various sorts of information and some people might start following you back. Just give it a little bit of time. If you put a little bit of effort into it you might find Twitter quite useful. To get started... I'd suggest following some of the people in the lists that I've made. Just look at a few timelines each day, see if they post what you're interested in, and then "follow" their posts. It's really pretty simple. As I said... Twitter is what you make of it, so I'd suggest trying it out (again) and seeing if it's for you.

And that's about it. I hope you'll find these sites discussed and the information presented here useful. I know this isn't the kind of thing that I usually write about, but I just wanted encourage some of my more computer savvy readers who spend some time online to check out these sites and maybe start networking.

Cheers,

NihiloZero

Reservations about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally

2010-09-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

Generally speaking, I really like what Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart do with their respective shows (The Colbert Report and The Daily Show). I often find them hilarious, insightful, and serving as something of a media watchdog. Stephen Colbert's roast of George W. Bush at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in 2006 was one of the boldest and funniest comic routines that I have ever seen. And Jon Stewart, although he seems to have become more partisan, still has done a lot of great work.

That said... I think both of these fantastic comedians have made some very counterproductive and hurtful presentations which relate directly to their planned rally. I know a lot of people idolize these men, and criticism of such progressive leftist icons will be distasteful to many party-line liberals, but in this instance I think it's particularly important to offer some friendly criticism and to hold them accountable for their recent comments (or the lack thereof) about other rallies, protests, and demonstrations.

During the G-20 Jon Stewart really dropped the ball and disappointed me greatly. He overtly trivialized the protesters and misrepresented events and actions surrounding the summit protest. In effect, I feel that he stabbed in the back some of the most concerned, dedicated, and well-intentioned people -- and they weren't all anarchists (although anarchists are a valuable and important faction at many protests). And it's easy to pretend that the protesters didn't have well-thought-out critiques if you listen to the cable news soundbites or watch snippets of edited video, but that belies the truth. Many of those protesters DID have comprehensive critiques of the G-20 leaders who actually ought to be held responsible for their warmongering, their environmental policies, and their promotion of economic policies which benefit the wealthy and the corporate elite at the expense of the world's poor. But not only did he marginalize the protesters by pretending that they had no real message, but he ignored the brutal crackdown that many totally innocent people suffered at the hands of the police. This was overwhelmingly a non-violent protest and even uninvolved passers-by were getting abused by the police. So now.... Jon Stewart wants to be the host of big rally with political overtones, but he totally ignored the violation of supposed free speech rights, and many serious messages, of people at an actual rally who were brutalized. Subsequently, I find his promotion of this "moderate," light-hearted rally, a bit sanctimonious. And you can be certain that if the police get mildly out of hand surrounding his rally (which truly and intentionally is a joke) he would be incensed.

I'd also point out that, in the same episode which I've linked to above, Stewart practically rattles Obama's saber for him in regard to Iran.

As for Colbert... I was very critical of his support for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. I hope people will hear me out before they guffaw and dismiss this criticism. The problem I had with his very real and sincere support was that it caused him to ignore a lot of the issues surrounding the Olympics which had inspired a lot of people to protest the event aggressively (although this protest was marginalized and ignored by the media like many other protests with a real purpose).

For starters... the promotion of corporate culture that goes along with the Olympics is disgusting. It might be fun to put a shiny happy face on it, but that hides the realities of the corporate sweatshops operated by some of the sponsors and the environmental destruction other sponsors are involved with. And these sponsors are benefited greatly by their association with the Olympics. Also... many indigenous people were outraged at the whitewashing of conditions in their communities and the Olympic facilities which were built on sacred grounds. I'd ask you to not callously dismiss these problems, and others associated with the Olympics, but that is exactly what Colbert did during the event. And he really didn't have to. He could have owned up to his participation with the Vancouver Olympics and continued with his patriot act, but still could have given a lot of time to the serious issues surrounding the event.

Now... it's not my intention to totally demonize Stewart & Colbert. But in light of their marginalizing responses to serious rallies and protests concerning real and important issues... I am a bit skeptical of what they actually want to accomplish now with their own rally. It's all fine and dandy to goof on the Republicans, and mock politicians in general, but, in the end, this country needs a real rally, focused on serious and substantial change. If you'll pardon the expression... a left liberal circlejerk isn't really that much more significant or important than a far right circlejerk. I understand that Colbert and Stewart are comedians, but they shouldn't ignore the real political implications and obvious undertones of the material they spoof. Their tongue-in-cheek rally belies the real need for an actual rally of historic proportions.

So my hope for this rally is that it will actually have a serious side with serious messages and real implications for the power structure. Colbert & Stewart will have a national stage to reach an audience which otherwise would ignore them and the many important issues they could highlight. And many of the people likely to attend the rally (October 30, 2010), will likely have a decent grasp of the serious issues we face. So, perhaps, if nothing else... maybe this event could be utilized to revitalize the anti-war movement. But, really, I'd reiterate that we need a lot more to change than simply the military stance of America. We really need some major protests surrounding many fundamental issues -- environmental degradation and the prison-industrial complex quickly come to mind at the top of any list I would make.

So, in short, I'd like to see people actually bringing their real issues to this rally. What happened to the anti-war movement? Why aren't we demanding a change to corporate politics as usual? Has anybody heard about what happened in the Gulf of Mexico or about this thing called global warming? These are things that need to be addressed as more than merely the subject matter of jokes. I'd like people to sincerely recognize and consider the implications of what actually happens in the halls of power of Washington D.C.. I'd like people to realize their own power and work to actually change things, to end the wars, and to protect the environment. And I'd like Colbert & Stewart to recognize the necessity of something like this happening. Business as usual has to change -- and that will require real rallies which literally shut the city down and preface a nationwide general strike until, at least, the wars are truly ended. As for the rest of our rights, including the right to live on a planet that isn't being destroyed by pollution, we should continue with various forms of protest until, at very least, substantial changes are made with certainty. I know it sounds grandiose, and perhaps over-reaching... but that might be what needs to be done.

Values of a College Education

2010-09-06T03:29:00.000-07:00

Much of my adult life I've spent enrolled in, or usually just around, various universities and colleges. This is because I appreciate some of the fresh ideas and the open-mindedness that is often associated with such institutions. I like to see prominent speakers come to town for participation in panels, or public discussions, or simply to give lectures about their fields of expertise. And I admire the passion that so many people around campus have about various subjects -- whether of a technical nature or with more obvious social importance. And, honestly, I often appreciate the decadent revelry that takes place throughout the school year.

That said... in just the last 15 years I have noticed some very disturbing trends which are making institutions of higher learning less beneficial to those enrolled within them and for society at large. Certainly some of these trends have been manifesting for some time longer than the last decade or so, and more seasoned academics could probably point out larger more insidious differences between today's college experience compared to campus life a few decades ago. But it's also possible that negative changes have started to occur more rapidly and with greater consequences to society as a whole.

Empathy (and the lack thereof)

As an example of a sudden negative change within the student body, I'd like to proceed by drawing your attention to a fairly sizable psychological study which suggests that... "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait." Now... I realize that few things are shocking to us in our generally desensitized culture, but this is a sudden (and possibly serious) development. So when I complain that college kids these days are arrogant, self-centered, and shallow... these aren't merely the grumblings of a blossoming curmudgeon! This can clinically be shown as true!

It might also be fair to consider that this sudden decline of empathy is possibly manifesting throughout American society -- and it's probably far more important when this dissolved characteristic becomes more prominent in police officers, soldiers, business people, and politicians. Nevertheless... the fact remains and, in many cases, these students will soon become members of the military or the business community or the government. Students today, on the fast track to power, are quickly becoming less empathetic. It may be impossible to calculate the long term cumulative effects on society.

The reasons behind this increasing emotional hollowness are probably very diverse. Recent changes in the K-12 school system are likely to blame for this phenomenon, at least in part. Newly built schools look more like prisons, technical drilling is more prominent than teaching methods of critical thought, and the slightest infractions within the mandatory school system are punished harshly. And although the following is also probably having negative effects on the broader society... psychological pharmaceuticals are being prescribed in a most irresponsible manner. It was recently revealed that: "Nearly 1 million American children may have been misdiagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, not because they have real behaviour problems but because they were the youngest in their kindergarten, researchers say." Read that last quote again and realize that many of those children were not just misdiagnosed, but also medicated with potentially dangerous pharmaceutical drugs.

Again, it is possible to take a look at broader society and see certain growing problems across the board. But this article is specifically trying to draw attention to one of the most revered institutions in our society and the fate and circumstances of young people in society deserves particular attention.

Corporate Homogenization & Gentrification

College campuses, as many have idealized, were formerly places of cutting-edge ideas -- and not just for the military-industrial complex, but also for progressive social change. As preeminently important as the American universities may have been for the creation of things like the atomic bomb or agent orange, they've also had periods of relative redemption when students and faculty rallied, en masse, against war, racism, and other social ills. While many students have historically worked for the misnamed concept of "defense," many also realised that the best defense was actually social justice, equality, and freedom.

However, in modern times, the corporations have played a greater role in determining the focus of American Universities. Intellectual impartiality has been replaced by overt corporate funding of major departments. And little doubt can be held that continuing corporate grants have been a key issue when determining who will hold the highest administrative positions on campus. With vast corporate contributions being made from the interests of nuclear, timber, computer sciences, bio-tech, marketing, et cetera... it is no surprise that the power of these departments has grown more than they otherwise might have. Those subsidies allow the related departments to become prominent on campus while other less technical fields increasingly become window dressing for the techno-industrial corporate thrust. And with major corporate donations propping up the administrative hierarchies... criticism of techno-industrial corporate culture becomes subtly more marginalized and less acceptable overall.

At the same time that colleges and universities have been getting more corporate donations (as opposed to private individual endowments in years past), tuition costs have quite dramatically increased in recent years -- far outpacing standard cost of living increases. And, in a way, this increase in tuition not only draws the focus of most criticism, but it also may serve to stymie other general criticism of the universities and their corporate backers. I speculate that this could be because the students capable of affording a college education will increasingly come from more affluent families -- while those with scholarships will increasingly come with corporate sponsors (and, for fear of their tenuous position, they may be more leery of criticizing the university system generally anyway). Basically... what we are seeing is the gentrification college campuses. And, arguably, the more affluent students (as well as those with corporate scholarships) might be more content and feel less reason for criticizing the system in general. So... less and less is the university campus a place where people of diverse backgrounds can come to discuss, debate, and argue about high ideals, and instead the campus is becoming a place for relatively well-to-do people who are enrolled with those beholden to corporate interests (and those who are in no financial position to rock the boat and risk their potential means of upward mobility).

As the gap between rich and poor increases, the gentrification on campus masks this simple reality -- as courses dealing with issues of equality, justice, and freedom are displaced subtly by classes teaching technical skills and better marketing techniques. Coincidentally... the most egregious and unethical corporations not only sponsor the schools directly, but they are given priviliged spots on campus -- for example, Monsanto or Microsoft might sponsor an entire department while McDonald's might have a restaurant in a prime area. And then, because more affluent people are attending the schools, even more dubious corporate interests might move into the college part of town to cater to the affluent students (while the less wealthy members of the community become marginalized and are, often literally, pushed aside). In an effort to "solve" the homeless problem, for example, or to make the community seem safer to bourgeois sensibilities, the colleges increasingly support more police patrols of the area. And all this creates a scenario where corporate power is not only reified on campus as something to be held sacrosanct, but even in the broader community any act of dissent becomes less likely and more of a risk. This is the real risk, and reality, of gentrification.

Bad Investments and the Future Technocrats of America

Now, I don't want to give an impression that the relatively well-to-do, or any of the other hard-working students, are guaranteed future success because of any time (or money) spent in college. Some, of course, will undoubtedly succeed in satisfying careers after graduating. But is their success because they went to college or because they were driven and intelligent people to begin with? An article written a couple years ago entitled, "America's Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor's Degree", addresses this overall subject quite well. To wit, allow me to share a few quotes from the article:

"Perhaps worst of all, even those who do manage to graduate too rarely end up in careers that require a college education. So it's not surprising that when you hop into a cab or walk into a restaurant, you're likely to meet workers who spent years and their family's life savings on college, only to end up with a job they could have done as a high-school dropout."

And...

"Perhaps more surprising, even those high-school students who are fully qualified to attend college are increasingly unlikely to derive enough benefit to justify the often six-figure cost and four to six years (or more) it takes to graduate. Research suggests that more than 40 percent of freshmen at four-year institutions do not graduate in six years."

And...

"Colleges make money whether or not a student learns, whether or not she graduates, and whether or not he finds good employment. Let the buyer beware."

I think that sums it up nicely what I think about college as an investment (but you might be able to find the rest of the article I've cited with THIS LINK, maybe).

But it's not just the dubious financial returns which call into question the value of a college education...

Suppose one graduates with one of several technical degrees. And suppose one even gets a job because of it and earns what is considered a reasonable salary. How many of these lucky young technocrats are actually going to like their jobs? How many are going to be emotionally satisfied with the work they do? And how many are essentially going to be bureaucrats who rubber stamp forms all day sending documents from one pile to the next? That may not really be an oversimplification, but let's even assume otherwise. So... how many of these content graduates are going to be working for the military-industrial complex? How many are going to work for the prison-industrial complex and further the drug war? Do these jobs really benefit society? In the long run, are they even likely to make the lives of those employed at them better? What kind of world are we creating when people enjoy designing new weapons and better forms of criminal justice (sic)?

And what about all those who will merely go to work in the consumer industry... they'll be making marketing a multitude of new disposable products and toxic chemicals that don't decompose for thousands of years. Sure, some might arguably make a more ecologically sound product... but let's not kid ourselves about what the masses of their peers will be up to. It's like the internet -- sure, it's made some communication easier and some facts easier to find, but it's also modernized marketing, increased sales, and facilitated the creation of more toxic trash than any other technology. It's all about cognitive dissonance, and our modern society has a plentiful supply.

College Life and Campus Activism

Perhaps the underlying reason I've written this article is because life around campus has become so uninspired, boorish, and cliché. Perhaps it was the latest issue of the school paper that bored me to tears. But what I really think inspired this article is the seeming lack of passion and the lack of appreciation about actually being alive, as a young adult, now, in this incredible day and age! And I'm not just talking about the passion associated with being young, drunk, wealthy, and/or horny. We live in a time with nearly 7 billion people, video on demand, international travel over night, and the largest library in the history of the world is at our fingertips! We live in an age when 1 billion people suffer malnutrition each year, wars rage, veritable slaves make our clothes, the Gulf of Mexico has essentially been turned into a hazardous waste zone (to go along with oceanic garbage gyres), and the threat of mass extinction looms over the next generation because of climate change. But, beyond the drunken revelry... where is the widespread passion about these things on campus?

As a small example of how things have changed over the years, let's look at Madison, WI (a relatively left-of-center college town in the midwest). Each year in Madison is an event known as the "The Mifflin Street Block Party." It has been billed as "the largest street party in America" and as many as 20,000 people have gathered for it. Bands play, stale corporate booze is sold, and students basically party, get drunk, and several inevitably get arrested or ticketed in scores. Students often like to pose for pictures with the police who will later be arresting them. Ok. Fine. Whatever. But what about the history of this seemingly innocuous event? According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject:

"The Mifflin Street Block Party began in 1969 as a street protest, which involved dancing in protest against the Vietnam War. Its original date, May 3, was set to coincide with the one year anniversary of the French student rebellion. Anti-war sentiments had accelerated in Madison since the 1967 Dow Chemical protest in which thousands of students occupied, and were violently expelled from, Ingraham Hall. The original event arose as part of a continuing conflict between students and police in the 'Miffland' area, centered on Mifflin Street. Police refused to allow permission for the street dance and when they entered the area in response to a noise complaint, a confrontation ensued that lasted three nights and spread into the surrounding student areas. Students threw stones at the police and constructed barricades to defend themselves. The police responded with tear gas and billy clubs. At the end, 70 people were injured and more than 100 arrested."

Now... regardless of how one feels about the history, THAT is what I call passion. An unsanctioned dance party, an act of solidarity, a protest against war, occupying a campus building, and a standoff with the police! Any of these things seem far more passionate than basically getting drunk, beaten up, and/or arrested for no good reason. And, by the way, you can bet that the police forces have a greater understanding of the history surrounding this event than the students do.

But note that Madison is a relatively small city in central Wisconsin! Wilder events were taking place on campuses across the country! And we're talking about a wide range of activities before we get to Berkeley California and the campus there (which Gov. Ronald Reagan, in 1966, called "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants"). And I would be remiss if I failed to mention some recent protests which have occurred in Berkeley surrounding tuition hikes... but they were largely about just that.

So if events like "The Mifflin Street Party" could take place in a small midwestern city 40 years ago... why not now -- on campuses across the country? The issues society must deal with have quite arguably gotten worse and leading scientific bodies will confirm the dire threats posed to human existence. Global warming (if you believe the most prestigious scientific bodies in the world) is predicted, on its own, to be utterly devastating by the end of this century (and the negative feedback loops will continue well past then). And this is even before any other potential disasters take place -- like unthinkable wars -- because of the environmental degradation. We're talking about the likely extinction of human beings within the next few generations and it hardly registers at all!

Wrapping It All Up

Ok... I was starting to rant, but I almost take pride in that. And I've possibly made my point... or have at least been able to vent. I expect nothing more than shrugs of shoulders in regard to this article. Were it widely discussed, I'd expect little more than shallow mockery. That too, is ok. Personally, I admit I'm no longer very prone to taking to the streets or acting out any frustrations or feelings of discontent. And maybe that's telling in itself (as I was once something of a firebrand).

Like many others, I have also probably become somewhat cold and desensitized. And perhaps that's for the best. Perhaps it's too much to look at the state of the world and expect any sort of action -- much less a meaningful response from the masses. And, perhaps it's best, in some ways, if we don't respond too passionately. Maybe the human psyche is unprepared to accept the totality of the modern world we live in. But I can't help feeling that even a minor protest against the current conditions would display a little bit of dignity -- which is perhaps the only thing left which might make us at all redeemable as a species. And I also can't help but to wonder... what do any of us really have to lose? Freedom and security are constantly at risk anyway in this Orwellian reality and we are collectively confronted with dire threats to the very existence of humanity.

So... I wish good luck to all the students. May you find your humanity and may you desire more than a drunken screw or a mundane career.

Download:

FLV MP4 3GP

A developing discussion about anarchist ideas, ideals, and practice.

2010-08-07T10:49:00.000-07:00

The following article was written by Alex Bradshaw and raises some very challenging and interesting points. I will continue the dialogue at some point in the future...

Social Anarchism, Techno-Pessimism, and Primitivism: A Belated Response to Nihilo Zero

Two Video Interviews with Two Great Philosophers

2010-07-04T20:58:00.000-07:00

I know it may seem like I'm posting a lot of videos lately, and this format may be a bit clumsy (you can just watch them on Youtube if you want), but these are really excellent multi-part videos featuring two of my favorite philosophers (Jacques Ellul and Herbert Marcuse) discussing imminently important subjects which are often misunderstood.

We'll start with Ellul and you can click the little "read more..." button below (if necessary) to see the rest. BTW, the first interview is given in French (w/ English subtitles) and the second, with Marcuse, is given in English.
Jacques Ellul - The Betrayal by Technology

Herbert Marcuse on the Frankfurt School

It was dehumanizing... completely.

2010-06-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

Anarchy, Technophiles, Freedom & Primitivism

2010-06-18T18:28:00.000-07:00

(The following piece was written to create a dialogue in response to an article entitled: "Anarchy Would Most Likely Prevent The BP Oil Disaster" written by someone known as ComradShaw.)

The ideas presented in ComradShaw's article are somewhat ideal, but they seem to rely too heavily on a misguided notion of self-restraint -- when such a thing seems to be seriously lacking in actual reality. The author seems to think that everyone could vote and agree on everything -- which, while potentially nice in practice, may or may not actually be somewhat more ideal in the consequences. My point isn't that people shouldn't rely on self-restraint in many matters, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't have a much greater say about what goes on in their world. But even free people in a far more egalitarian society could make horrible mistakes. And hubris, whether coming from the whole or from even just a segment of society, can lead to disaster.

Self-restraint is obviously a good thing, in many respects, and is basically what allows any society to exist at all. And it is unrestrained authority and domination which anarchists fight, challenge, and resist. But it seems to me that we all, anarchist or otherwise, have a great deal of discrepancy about what exactly we feel should be restrained from within ourselves and from within others. I've always liked the notion that you should be free to do whatever you want and I should, subsequently, be free to fight you if I deem that necessary. But that's admittedly somewhat impractical in terms of maintaining a sustainable society.

What it really comes down to is a question of technology. If one of us allows the other to make a powerful weapon, or another dangerous device, it may become too late and futile to try and stop the one in possession of such a thing. And, after an untold number of genocides and industrial accidents, how am I (or anyone else for that matter) simply supposed to trust in the good intentions of someone wielding power? It's a fine notion that, in an anarchist society, I could simply organize with others and stop you if you (or a subgroup) became powerful and domineering -- but what if you had very suddenly achieved too much power to be stopped? And this type of situation often relates to technology.

In the topic article, ComradShaw does take notice of "indigenous societies that operated outside of what is called civilization." But such societies are placed seamlessly alongside "technofiles (who) may live in small-scale technopias, developing their own gadgets and software." If only it were that simple! If only the technophiles only ever created harmless little gadgets and programmed software. But that is certainly not the case in actual reality.

In actual reality the technophiles experiment wildly with forces, by definition, which they don't understand (and may not be able to control). And let's not fail to state the obvious -- it is the technological society which has brought us Chernobyl, Nagasaki, and the potential for global thermonuclear war. It was western scientists, using the principles and devices of western science, who brought these things into being. It was not the overtly primitive Sioux, the Cherokee, the primitive peoples of Africa or Asia or Europe or Australia. And it should be pointed out that many of those societies were overtly opposed the potential harm they implicitly saw coming from western society.

So we can talk of good and bad coming from technology, but when the bad potentially can destroy all life on Earth... you'd think that might trump any potential good -- and thus lead us to avoid going down the technological path altogether (as much as we are possibly able). And the nature of technological research is such that seemingly innocent work done in one field can be twisted into something highly destructive when applied in another. I've often asked a nuclear physicist friend how she would feel if her seemingly harmless research revealed something that was then used to make better weapons -- and I never get an adequate response.

The point is that self-restraint can only practically apply to society when you know what the consequences will otherwise be. If you are constantly experimenting with forces you obviously don't understand yet... how can you be sure what the consequences will be? So... the combination of potentially uncontrollable forces being released, along with the potential for ethical misuse, makes a technological society fundamentally threatening. And once we release those forces and present them to the general public... it continuously becomes increasingly difficult to restrain those forces.

As it relates to freedom, we are faced with a situation where we must decide if the freedom to experiment in innate ignorance is more important to society than the grave threats potentially unleashed upon society. Are all of our other freedoms -- the freedom to love, to sing, to screw, to eat, etc. -- are all those freedoms worth risking for the freedom to act in ignorance? And ignorance is, actually, the driving force behind a technological society.

There is a fundamental difference between the primitive method of attaining knowledge, through passive observation, and the technological method of incessant tinkering and blind manipulation of forces which are not understood. And the methods of spreading knowledge are also more focused and direct in primitive societies -- rather than creating documents for all to see and use (in any way they see fit), the important knowledge is spread directly within the tribe from generation to generation. And when ComradShaw writes about the Pygmies and their collective communal responsibility (for a particular individual's actions)... that seems much easier and more likely in their situation because no individual is likely to create a devastating technological disaster.

So, how could a primitive segment of society be certain that the technophiles wouldn't do something dangerously ignorant in their scientific hubris? How would the primitivist segment be sure that the technophiles wouldn't need more and more raw materials to replace the ones they previously experimented on, dissected, and destroyed?

And it needs to be pointed out that the most dedicated technological societies are going to require hierarchy and division of labor. This is because the greatest scientific minds will be made prominent and will need to be catered to while they incessantly conduct their experiments. A technological society that divides the activity of it's "Einsteins" between the lab and field will not "progress" as quickly as the one that allows it's greatest technological minds pure scientific activity. The rise of a technocracy is consequently a very real and justified fear.

The social costs of the oil spill, outlined by ComradShaw, drive a good point. But even including the risks of emitting higher greenhouse gases, there was, and remains, a far greater threat. I have argued that the chance of this oil spill posing an existential risk for humanity was probably greater than zero. If this spill had been located in a more sensitive spot, at a deeper level, and had a slightly higher spill rate -- we could have been faced with a sudden extinction event. How much oil, would have to kill how much phytoplankton, before most (if not all) humans died as well? Talk about a social risk! Dollar costs, jobs lost, and civil unrest pales in comparison.

Now I agree that the current system of centralized, hierarchical, corporate power exacerbates many problems and risks. But techno-industrialism can still pose great problems even in a more egalitarian society. It seems to me that a true long term solution promoting life and freedom would involve fundamentally challenging and dismantling the techno-industrial infrastructure. Some form of Luddism has existed and been maintained for centuries, at some level, and it may now be time to promote such ideas more than ever.

Either way, it's likely that we will see a collapse of technological civilization if only because it brings about it's own demise through unsustainable practices. But the risk is, if it's left to it's own devices, then it may bring down much more along with it. Therefore, with a primitive society as the long term ideal and goal... insurrectionary anarchist tactics should be used to bring about that transition. That is how I imagine society could create a healthy and sustainable future.

On a personal note, I don't know how likely the ideal I've outlined is to manifest. This will require a revolution of values and ideas that hasn't ever happened before except in small isolated areas for a temporary amount of time. But, since the advent of civilization, isn't that also the history of Anarchism? And just because these ideals seem nigh impossible to act upon, is that the reason to ignore them and continue on as if fundamental flaws weren't revealed? These are matters of personal dignity and sustainability in terms of both society and the biosphere. So even if the battle for this primitivist ideal is lost, even if it's almost doomed from the start, we'll all have lost anyway if this project is not undertaken. What good is freedom if you are only allowed, or if you only choose, between bad options? Freedom, in metaphysical terms, requires, ultimately, doing what you feel is right -- even if you must suffer and struggle for it. Falling short of that, one is not truly free.

I hope we can, at least, create a dialogue on these subjects. I'm sure that many will disagree with the ideas expressed here -- and that is respected and understood. But I'd ask any anarchists, or philosophers of freedom, to try and keep the discourse civil. I am not attempting to steal anyones iPod, and the techno-quest for the philosopher's stone has come up laughingly short -- so let's try to stick to the actual subjects at hand and not use rhetorical tactics simply for the sake of argument itself. As many know, anarchist forums are packed with trolls. And primitivist ideas, being expectedly underrepresented, are subjected to particular amounts of vitriol and slander. I would ask for respect and consideration -- and defense from such attacks -- if and when they arise in the forums.

For peace, sustainability, and revolution...

Nihilo Zero

The Oil Spill Disaster & Fundamental Flaws of the Overall System

2010-06-10T12:13:00.000-07:00

As many of my regular readers might suspect, I've been following the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico rather closely. But a particular event related to that catastrophe really brought together my overall opinion of the whole mess. In an obscenely ludicrous turn of events, those applying to respond for the clean-up efforts on the gulf coast were subjected to drug tests and immigration raids! I was almost too furiously disgusted to guffaw.

But, frankly, maybe this potentially predictable event is just what was needed to allow us a chance to see the oil spill in a broader and more comprehensive context. As destructive, disruptive, and outright calamitous as this epic and growing oil spill has been... it's easy to forget or overlook the fact that humanity was already in and facing serious crisis. Even without our terminal addiction to oil (which is easily one of the most comprehensive and pressing issues) we still face issues which are often, at best, only incidentally related to petroleum extraction.

Let's take general consumerism, for example. It's only incidental that our toxic and disposable gadgets are made from petroleum-derived plastics. Widespread deforestation and dustbowls were already being manifested before the oil-powered era of the 20th century. The genocide of the Americas had already taken place, and species from the dodo to the humpback whale were already hunted to (or near) extinction. So the cultural drive to consume, quite literally, was already inculcated in many people around the world. And, hopefully, you can see how all these things could pose fundamental problems even before the advent of the oil age. If a "clean" energy source were implemented, a solar-powered bulldozer would still be destructive -- wind-powered computers would still generate e-waste.

Supposing that a substitute for oil was put into, or always had been, in place... we would still be faced with issues like the war on drugs, the prison-industrial complex, and brutality instituted by the state. And while certainly related on some levels, even in a relative environmental utopia we might still be faced with overwhelming issues of authoritarian oppression. So while I don't want to dismiss the social benefits that would undoubtedly arise from a clean environment, it needs to be pointed out that other issues, especially as they are related, need adequate attention.

As usual, we must make sure that we are not hacking at the branches on the ship of fools -- my favorite mixed metaphor.

Patriarchal Materialism and the Eco-Feminist Alternative

While some would ignorantly use the ideas for an equally unjust matriarchy or a personal attitude of petty payback, I think the ideas of eco-feminism are more relevant than most in the current discussion. The predominant culture, particularly in the west and the United States, looks at nature, and people, in a fundamentally shallow way -- and thus abuses them accordingly.

Definitions, while useful, are often abused by those who are more interested in rhetorical word games rather than what anyone is actually meaning to say -- nevertheless, I would suggest the problems facing humanity relate somehow to a concept of materialism. In short, I'd say our society is (and has been for some time) gluttonous, greedy, and impatient.

We are gluttonous and greedy in our rapacious appetites for nearly everything -- without adequate thoughts of what will remain or what the byproducts will be. I think this is fairly obvious overall when looking at western society. But this becomes even more of a problem when combined with our impatience.

We are impatient in our thirst for knowledge to such a degree that we often destroy the things which we are seeking to understand. Our impatience leads us to not look at things holistically -- to such a degree that we start dissecting or transforming a particular part of the world before we actually begin to understand the role it plays in the whole of things.

Many assume the ignorance of our fellow creatures because we have not observed an intelligence which they, personally, can comprehend. Others seem not to understand that there are any consequences in changing a forest to a field and then to a parking lot. And so few seem to understand that simple observation can provide more knowledge and insight than any amount of dissection or experimentation.

Now I know that it may seem I've gone off-topic in apparent tangents, but I remind the reader that this article is about the fundamental flaws in the system -- and I am trying to expose the proverbial root which may actually be worth striking.

The oil spill is a symptom, not a cause.

If it hasn't already, the oil spill in the gulf, as one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, should make us fundamentally question the system which manifested it. How many more such disasters can we tolerate? How much larger of a disaster can we tolerate? How likely is it that more and larger disasters will occur?

On a superficial level we can expect, at the very least, more pointed skepticism and intolerance for the indulgences of corporatism and it's governmental accomplices. BP, British Petroleum, which is directly responsible for the failed Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico (and the subsequent disaster) was supposed to be the "green" and "eco-friendly" energy corporation. The U.S. government had entrusted BP with the primary official role in clean-up response before this disaster even occurred -- despite a record that made even the notorious Exxon seem safe and responsible by comparison.

If the American people and the people around the world didn't already have enough reasons to distrust the government and the corporations... now might be a good time to start fundamentally questioning any supposed social contracts that are supposed to keep we plebes safe. The disaster in the Gulf should not make us simply question just the BP corporation and the current actions of the government. People around the globe are being abused (and even killed) by corporations across the board -- and the government is imposing itself upon us in ways that greatly transcend it's incompetence in facilitating and handling the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

When are we going to get serious?

To many without a grasp of history, the following plea may seem hackneyed, hyperbolic, and contrite, but... When are we going to revolt?! It's becoming evermore clear that we ought to be, literally, fighting for our lives.

The crisis is already real for the billion people who don't get enough food each day, for the billions toiling their lives away on the assembly lines, and for the tens of millions around the globe who are trapped in war-torn conditions. But even those outside of the most immediately dire circumstances are faced with the accumulating toxins of industrial society -- from irradiated water leaking out of nuclear plants to agricultural run-off; from greenhouse gas emissions to the oceanic garbage gyres, and now... to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And, as much as we may want to deny, underplay, or forget it... the powers-that-be are still holding over our heads the nuclear weapons which could, quite conceivably, destroy all human life on Earth.

Even if you are skeptical about personal survival in these conditions, or even about the survivability of humankind overall, simple dignity would seem to demand a serious response. I realize that homo sapien sapien is the most domesticated animal (and that neither cattle nor attack dogs have anything on us), but must we, as a whole, take the current existential crisis passively? Must we resign ourselves to either suffering or fiddling while Rome burns? Is there no hope or satisfaction in trying for a fundamental revolution of our social, economic, and environmental conditions?

Infiltration, Surveillance, Brutality: The Police State is Issue #1

2010-03-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

No matter what your primary concerns about society are -- environmental degradation, sweatshop labor, war, racism, etc. -- without foremostly addressing and scaling back the corporate police state, i.e. the prison-industrial complex, any progressive social change you are advocating for can, and will, be thwarted. This matters not if you are part of the most non-violent vegan sewing circle or if you are prepared to throw down in the streets for the dignity of humankind. Any perceived threat to the status quo, to profits and destruction, will be subjected to the evermore brazen and militarized forces of the state.

With about 2 million+ people remaining imprisoned each day in the USA, and with closer to 9 million+ getting cycled through the prison system each year, the prison-industrial complex should be an issue unto itself (even if we are living in an otherwise utopia). As long as small children continue getting arrested for tantrums and elderly grandmothers get tazed for indignation, as long as people of all stripes get murdered on a daily basis by "peace" officers, abolition of the prison-industrial complex can and should be a populist issue for people to rally around. And this is well before we get to issues of entrapment, infiltration, surveillance, and overt violence against movements advocating for social change.

No matter what your primary concerns about society are, if you don't spend some time addressing this issue... the rest of your time may likely be wasted. There are at least 2 reasons for this. The first has already been addressed inasmuch as movements and organizations will be infiltrated and attacked at every level. The second has to do with issues of populism. The police on the street are the face of authoritarianism in a very real way for a great many people. Whether as a conscious decision or not, many people won't to be inclined to involve themselves with other social issues until the pressing daily issue of their subjection is addressed. And who can blame them?

If we want to build populist solidarity and further our other efforts for social change we must regularly spend some time addressing the prison-industrial complex. And although it may seem wishy-washy, reform at the local level may be key in addressing this issue. Even so-called "progressive" candidates campaign on issues of increasing the budgets for local police departments and increasing the numbers of police on the streets. That, at very least, needs to change. But more than that, in addition to it, we need to present frequent criticism of the police state in our social networks. We need to share links, pass letters, and have discussions about the problem. At every major protest there should be some element of relevant criticism directed toward the police state. This issue is nearly on par with, and is (as Angela Davis points out) an extension of the abolitionist movement.

If you are already involved with movements for social change, no matter how mild or radical your connections are, you should consider the strong possibility that you are already under some degree of surveillance. Agents of the state have infiltrated a wide variety of groups (even to the highest levels of leadership) -- often to merely keep track of who is joining and with an eye on figuring out what their interests or exploitable tendencies are. Sometimes the agents merely take up space or subtly drive away people who may share our values. Sometimes their intentions are more insidious and diabolical. Everyone should consequently have a strong understanding of what's required from above-ground radicals and underground activists. People should operate on a need-to-know basis involving even the mildest protest tactic (as even those mild tactics are often brutally repressed). The bolder your actions are... the smaller your group of participants should be. When organizing with others you should be mindful of bravado, ignorance, and ill-informed advice. No one you've just met should be trying to involve you with anything illegal and, even after a while, the level of illegality must be scaled up over time -- if you are so inclined to engage in non-sanctioned protest activity. It's called security culture, people, and if you are serious you should spread the word about it in a serious way. There will be no need for paranoia or general mistrust within our communities if you practice security culture as a natural extension of your activities. They still may come after you, in all manners of appearance, but there is no reason to make their sociopathic jobs any easier.

And that's about all this writer has to say. I don't want to know about any planned crimes beyond misdemeanors (no matter how justified) and won't involve myself with anything more. If you want to discuss theory, or generalities, or if you want to spread already public information... that's what I do and I'm often happy to assist with those endeavors. I'm optimistic about creating a better world with less oppression, less war, and less environmental degradation. However, before that happier and healthier world will be created... the police state must be abolished.

Sincerely,

Nihilo Zero (out of nothing, nothing)

http://radicalphilosophy.notlong.com
http://twitter.com/nihilozero

Noam Chomsky and Mild Reformist Tactics

2010-03-16T05:42:00.000-07:00

The following was inspired by a recent interview with Noam Chomsky which was coordinated by people working through the anarchist subreddit at Reddit dot com.

As a chronicler of modern history, Noam Chomsky is something of an icon. The number of people he has influenced with his writing in favor of general social justice is probably beyond measure. He has highlighted things with his political writings that may otherwise not have received the attention they deserve, and I'm sure he'll be the first to admit that they still do not get all the attention they deserve. He's talking about very serious things in terms of apartheid, genocide, and war.

Unfortunately, with his latest interview, he has proven that simply being aware of many serious problems does not necessarily give you any real insight on how to effectively deal with them. And I might point out... some of the issues he brings up in passing, like environmental degradation, seem to be thrown in as a token for the effect of appearing comprehensive. On the particular subject of environmentalism, for instance, he offers nothing substantive with his suggestion that anarchists should be concerned with such issues. Unsupported by what human beings have already done, he suggests that humanity will be able to technologically engineer it's way into a more peaceful, less polluted, less devastated world. Perhaps so, but that's pretty vague, at best.

What really stuck in my craw was a couple of points in particular. The first was his explicitly stated support for "mild reformist tactics." In a more ideal world, under more ideal conditions, this might be as reasonable and cool-headed as he intends it to be. Unfortunately, this is a far from an ideal world and he should know that beyond a doubt. If I may be so bold, as someone who tries to highlight these issues on a regular basis, please allow me to try and summarize some of the pressing issues facing humanity today.

A) More people are starving today than at any other point in history OR pre-history (both in total numbers and per-capita). It is estimated that 1 billion people live with issues of chronic hunger. That's more than 1 out of every 7 people, alive today, who are aren't getting a basic human requirement for life.

B) The environment is being ravaged in no uncertain terms. The myriad of issues are almost too great to even begin listing... climate change, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, deforestation, desertification, and the Pacific trash vortex are just the starters of what's seriously jeopardizing the ability to sustain life on this planet. Indeed, we are currently experiencing the most devastating period of mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out.

C) War. Although sometimes related to the two preceding items, war by itself is an occurrence which effects the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Around the world, in forms old and new, wars rage. And the weapons which could destroy every person on this planet are being improved upon and spread to evermore groups. One could debate the effects of global thermonuclear war or a limited strike, but it would be a fools errand. The potential for global devastation must be defused -- but proliferation continues.

D) The general conditions of life for billions of people (even if they are not immediately and directly effected by hunger, war, or a polluted water table) is such that many are still veritable, if not actual, slaves. Never mind the millions who get cycled through the prison-industrial complex each year (or the constant police presence in every American city), many people have few alternatives beyond working on the assembly line for all their waking days. And that's even before considering the most atrocious sweatshops or mines or fields that many people are forced to work in.

In the light and shadows of this reality, Chomsky calls for mild reformist tactics. He even digresses into talk about healthcare reform!

This is the icon of the left (who even has the ear of would-be radicals) that is propped up as the preeminent intellectual of our era. This is, from what I understand, the most quoted person alive. But what is he really saying that will actually inspire a much needed difference? And why on Earth would anarchists, of all groupings, try to claim him as one of their own?! In this recent interview he even reaffirms his support for strengthening the state! The situation is beyond ridiculous and even has Orwellian undertones.

He actually goes out of his way to insult the modern anarchist movement as it exists within the confines of the United States. He suggests we haven't got our act together because we haven't been able to muster the same large protests as some European anarchists -- but he fails to point out that we face a far more militarized and draconian police force in this nation. We suffer high levels of infiltration in our daily lives and then suffer state violence at protests merely for showing up. And he certainly isn't giving any support for the thousands who do actually show up and protest things like the RNC, DNC, G20, et cetera. If he's going to criticize us for a lack of it, then maybe he should give us some support in these regards and not dismiss us like the mainstream media. But he is not at all talking about protest (which has historically brought about great change), he's talking about "mild reformist tactics" and "small steps." He wants us to be reasonable, and practical, and work on things like healthcare reform or worker control of the factories with the support of the state.

In my attempt to be thorough allow me to digress... I won't even comment on the likelihood or the potential harm that could be caused if industrial consumerism was perpetuated by worker control of factories with the support of the state. But the focus on healthcare reform as a worthwhile effort (and it would certainly be hard to achieve and maintain) needs to be commented upon...

It is true that "The radically inefficient, privatized, unregulated healthcare system is extremely harmful to the people, except the wealthy." But why in the world would we trust the U.S. government "to develop a sensible national healthcare system?" Even if it does somehow get implemented, for all our reformist efforts, are we supposed to discount the rising probability of the economy in the United States crashing in a way that the Soviet Union never did? I'm reminded of all the people who established pensions through their unions only to find out one day that all the funds have been magically deleted by the stroke of a bankers pen. So how much effort should we put into establishing such things? Even if fully successful, what will the long term effects of such placating policies have on the general public? Don't get me wrong, I think people should have health care -- but we will need far more fundamental change overall before we actually get it. And healthcare won't mean much if any of the larger problems we face come to their logical outcomes.

In all honesty, even I have suggested ways that reformism could have a place in creating long-term social change for the general benefit of humanity. But it's not an either/or situation, and that's how Chomsky frames it by discounting and failing to promote regular demonstrations of people in the streets. He does not speak to the practicality of such mass movements and the manner in which they can inspire reform like no other action.

The problem with reformism isn't really that we want too much in terms of issues being resolved, the problem is that we NEED these issues resolved, in short order, for our long term survival as a species. We need a general movement of people in the streets making it clear that we see through the fascistic oligarchy that is wreaking havoc around the world. Simply put, we need the masses in the streets making it clear that we won't take any more of the rampant general corruption and villainy which presides over our daily lives. And we need to get into the streets sooner rather than later.

Piecemeal reformism without mass protests won't do anything because we all know, everybody knows, the government can simultaneously undo progressive reform while it concedes a hard won reform somewhere else. The question isn't whether or not we should be in the streets, the question is how long we should be there and how much change is needed before mild reformist tactics make sense. My guess is that we'll need to be there a long time, under hard conditions, and we'll need to go back often. The slogan of the anarchists used to be "perpetual revolution!"

Mass demonstration protests, i.e. general strikes, are not easy undertakings. But their great potential makes them more practical in terms of a risk/reward analysis. It may seem somewhat counterintuitive, but it's easier to protest in mass with solidarity than it is to spend every free hour writing to (or campaigning for) your particular politician. And mass protests show real sacrifice and commitment. Without showing that commitment, without people taking risks and making sacrifices, the politicians can ignore and manipulate at their discretion because there is no consequence or embarrassment for them.

And we must demand a total revolutionary change in the social structure because those in power may try to only meet us half way -- and that's a start, a reformist start. Fortunately, there are many relatively depoliticized groups of people who will be willing to start undertaking these mass demonstration projects with us -- the unemployed, the evicted, the victims of the police state, the unions, the people who lost their pensions, the anti-war activists, the health care reformists, students, environmentalists, and on and on and on. We do need to organize with these people and we need to make it clear that we are working for a thoroughly comprehensive change of a thoroughly corrupt system. Yes there will be resistance. Yes it will be difficult. But the longer we wait to take to the streets the worse the aforementioned problems will get and the harder they will be to remedy.

I see no point in further discussing Chomsky or paying any attention to his pacifying drone. His proposed solutions and methods of acting are hollow. He sounds calm and reasonable but he's an empty academic suit and the epitome of an ivory tower intellectual with no practical advice for effectively bringing about real change.

In regard to how we long should stay in the streets, I will close with a rallying cry from the Paris insurrection of 1968... "Underneath the paving stones, the beach!"

A primitivist response to Andrew Flood's question: Is primitivism realistic?

2010-03-05T13:16:00.000-08:00

The following is a response to an article written some time back by Andrew Flood (hereafter often referred to as "the author"). The article is in circulation again on one of the social networking/bookmarking/link-sharing sites (reddit.com) which I peruse. Although this response is somewhat late, I feel it's still relevant and will remain so. I should also point out that I do not primarily identify myself as a Primitivist, but I do see much worth in the ideas of anarcho-primitivism. My response starts and continues by taking on quoted statements made in the original work by Andrew Flood: Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others.

Since when was the "basic purpose" of anarchism "the creation of a free mass society?" And if that was the simplified basic purpose, why does it have to remain so? Maybe these are word games the author is playing, but a free society doesn't necessarily have to be a "mass" society and I personally could see complications arising in a mass society that was too large. This would be especially true if the mass society was constantly encroaching on bioregions and cultures that could not survive the intrusion. What does freedom really mean if your version of mass industrialism imposes itself as far and as densely populated as possible? More to do with "faith than reality" indeed.

The author writes: "agriculture allows us to get vastly greater quantities of food from a given area." But not only may this not be true -- considering the long-term reduction of fertility and desertification that has accompanied agriculture from it's earliest stages -- but why must human food production rising to the level of sustaining "a mass society" be necessary in order to achieve human happiness and freedom? On the contrary, that has not been the effect of agriculture. Hundreds of millions starve today at the height of this system and how many more are veritably enslaved whether they are guiding the ox plow or creating the industrial machinery to till the soil? Simplistic understanding (and I daresay ignorance) of primitive cultures would have us believing that as large of a percent of their societies were starving as are currently starving under agricultural dominance in the world today. The fact is... small primitive tribes had an abundance and diversity of food which simply doesn't exist today.

Ironically, the author writes: "Large sections of the anarchist movement seem to have forgotten that the goal of anarchism is to change the world, not simply to provide a critique of the left or be a minor thorn in the side of the state." Not only does this not necessarily jive with the aforementioned "basic purpose of anarchism," but it also overlooks the fact that it is the primitivists who are actually trying to change the world (back into a sustainable livable place) and are offering the most fundamental critique! To the extent that any other so-called anarchists want to prop up techno-industrial mass society, they find themselves right in line with the fundamentally predominant philosophy of the society which they propose challenging.

Regarding the authors interpretation of Aragorn's comment in the "Is Primitivism Realistic?" section... I think that many casual readers, regardless of their philosophical angle, will see that Aragon's statement is obfuscated or misunderstood by the author. Even out of context one can see that the point wasn't that implementation of primitivism may or may not be bizarre but, rather, that we should not be deterred because some others may see our goals as "unrealistic." Who cares if some people see freeing slaves and protecting biodiversity as unrealistic or bizarre?! I thought the point was supposed to be changing the world while offering a critique of the left and being a thorn in the side of the state?

It seems to me that the author is suggesting that Primitivists dream too big. But, at the same time, the author seems to not recognize the actual nightmare that has presented itself as the height of civilization.

As for the "core issue" of population... what the author and numerous others fail to recognize is that civilization is unsustainable. The widespread practices of agriculture and the petro-chemical driven "green revolution" are unsustainable. Those things, combined with the waste of consumerism and the use of civilized weapons of war will, in all reasonable likelihood, lead to a collapse in the human population. Whether this is a hard landing (with a sudden and unpleasant reduction) or a soft-landing (with people voluntarily reducing their numbers while creating more sustainable ways of life) is irrelevant in this context. Civilization is unsustainable and a population crash of it's own design is all but inevitable. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, a reduction in population is a probable reality that should be considered by all those who are interested in preserving life and freedom on this planet. But it is not necessarily up to the Primitivists to decide how this will come about and, really, they have little to do with it. The population crash stands on its own not as an idealized concept or even necessarily as an actionable thing but, rather, as an impending reality. This has to do with basic biology, not a philosophical hope or a revolutionary practice. We, as humans in general, have expanded too far and wide while using up our agricultural petro-chemicals. Deforestation and desertification spreads. We have largely fished out the oceans and continue to pollute anything and everything. Surprise... this is not sustainable and the artificially increased population that came along with the features of civilization will, inevitably, crash. I reiterate that this, in particular, has little to do with what primitivists may want or do. Basically, in short, the author's "core issue" is almost the epitome of a red herring.

Then... when John Zerzan's reply is quoted, his words are ridiculously interpreted by the author. When JZ writes that "population is hardly a given" he's obviously not suggesting that there may actually be no human population! What he's suggesting is that the size of the human population is not necessarily, a priori, given to be a certain size simply because we exist as a species. Again... I believe that even a casual reader would be able to spot this misinterpretation no matter how out of context it may be.

For Flood to then accuse Zerzan of taking him out of context and creating a red herring seems utterly ridiculous! Projection anyone?!

I must say that I disagree with Zerzan regarding population decline as quoted: "I do not know anyone who says this could happen overnight..." Well, allow me to introduce myself! I'm not saying this will happen, but civilized society, with all its science and "advancements," has brought us to the age when we are always living on the cusp of veritable extinction! In western society the most intellectually people are rocket scientists and nuclear engineers. When they get together, as they have, the whole world is endangered. It's a nice quaint thought that no politicians or military leaders would ever do anything uncouth with their most powerful weapons. But I think even a cursory look at history will show that the violent insanity of prominent civilized leaders has not swayed them from the most egregious atrocities of war. The most powerful weapons of war are being "improved" and spread to more and more modern societies. I'm not saying it will happen, but it seems like only a matter of time before someone like Andrew Jackson, Genghis Khan, Hitler, or Pol Pot gets a hold of these weapons -- and uses them. This could, quite conceivably, cause a chain reaction of ill-thought reprisals. And if I may contradict myself a little bit without it being taken out of context, I think primitivists ought to have some thoughts about preventing the spread of these hi-tech weapons and stopping them from falling into anyone's hands. I'd even advocate a bit of reformism along these lines if I had to or if I thought it would amount to anything.

Now again... I don't want to pretend that there is a great disagreement between myself and Zerzan on the issue of population decline, and I suspect he may have been talking about more idealized forms of population reduction. If I had to guess, I'd wager he might even agree with me on the unfortunate likelihood of civilized leaders taking us all down with them. My only purpose of getting into all this was to show the red herring created by Flood on the issue of population reduction. Most primitivists are not advocating a violent and sudden decline in the human population brought about by their actions.

To try and sum up the anarcho-primitivist position on population reduction, let me say this: Mass numbers of people are not necessarily ideal, the society they exist within is not necessarily ideal, and the related branches of science and development within civilized societies has brought about widespread destruction and is ecologically unsustainable. Ergo, the population created by mass civilized society is unsustainable and will decline -- one way or another, like it or not. In geological terms this is certain to be true but I think Zerzan may definitely be on to something when he refers to the next few decades as being critical .

As for "The centrality of the agricultural revolution" which the author Flood apparently wants to preserve and expand, I'd point out that there are Primitive societies that do still exist on the fringes and that these people might be both admired and worthy of preservation. They may even offer something worthy of emulation. Imagine that. So, if Flood wants to preserve "the agricultural technology of the last 100 odd years," he needs to acknowledge the related deforestation and desertification which has impeded upon the lives and freedoms of primitive tribes that still existed during the process. If he's arguing that the novelty of techno-industrial creations are worth preserving, he should recognize the destruction brought about by these things and then balance that with however many people may, unfortunately, want to have these things as well. I'm saying, even if possible, that it would be destructive, and in some cases authoritarian, to continue the practices and trends of techno-industrial civilization over the last 100 years which he has defended. Indeed, "Agriculture also seems a very logical starting point because agriculture is what makes a mass society possible."

When Flood makes claims like this one: "Hunter-gathers can't gather in large groups for a long period because they exhaust local food sources," I feel that he is falling into the lines of a discredited version of anthropology. The myth of primitive tribes suffering from great scarcity was one perpetuated by early Americans who were justifying genocide. And the fact of the matter is that in modern times nearly one billion people go hungry every year! On top of all the other problems associated with agriculture, people aren't even getting fed! And this was not the case with pre-agricultural primitive tribes, regardless of discredited statements to the contrary. So what is Flood defending?! The agricultural revolution and the preference of the civilized society over those who were happily leading primitive and sustainable lives?

Is primitivism a branch of anarchism? While I appreciate and admire both Kropotkin and Bakunin, I do not necessarily believe they are correct in all things or that their 150 year old statements still definitively define what anarchism is. Specifically... I suggest that this quote from Bakunin smacks of ignorance and, potentially, racism: "primitive men enjoying absolute liberty only in isolation are antisocial by nature. When forced to associate they destroy each other's freedom." Perhaps the operative word here is "forced" since most of their conflicts and hardships occur when the practices of civilized societies encroach upon them.

So one can talk about how "from the beginning" anarchism has been opposed to primitivism but really we are talking about how early anarchist philosophers had flaws and sometimes a faulty basis for their statements. Certainly two historic paragraphs don't adequately carry the argument and even entire volumes by these two anarchist icons shouldn't necessarily be accepted as some sort of unassailable anarchist wisdom.

To then try and compare Primitivists with President Bush makes Flood's piece something to laugh out loud at! AND, ironically, like Bush, it is Flood who fails to recognize that "elsewhere on the planet people already organise their lives in ways that have a much lower energy demand." In particular... he is ignoring and dismissing the people who have led and continue to lead primitivist lifestyles despite the encroaching destruction brought about by civilization.

As for Flood's treatment of technology, I don't know where to begin. I don't think Flood is comprehending the primitivist critique adequately and I'm not sure it's worth expanding on the subject here as it requires a powerful logic and an intellectual honesty which I feel Flood has failed to demonstrate. In the beginning of his fourth paragraph under the "technology" section, after he expounds pointlessly and cites criticism, he himself states: "These misunderstandings are probably my fault for stating the case too crudely in the original." I also don't think this new article is offering much along any lines showing any true understanding of what a real primitivist critique of technology is. For the time being, I will limit myself, for the benefit of others, to suggesting a few articles on the subject for their consideration...

Technology by John Zerzan

DIVISION OF LABOR by John Zerzan

Technophilia, An Infantile Disorder by Bob Black

And, if you're really bold you might want to check out some Herbert Marcuse or Jacques Ellul. There is a lot of work out there which seriously questions and challenges the common and simplistic understanding of technology.

Moving on to "the odder stuff," Flood decides to highlight some of the various opinions he has received as comments which he deems "of much lesser importance." One might even wonder why he even includes the sentiments of random "Primitivists" at all but then... that serves to discredit Primitivism as a whole with a sort of dicto simpliciter attack. It is worth noting, in this "odder stuff" section, that he calls all existing primitive peoples "speciesist" because they hunt animals.

When he gets to his thoughts about abstract or symbolic thought, Flood answers his own question: "who cares?" It needs to be stated here that Zerzan's thoughts on the subject do not sum up the agreed upon opinion of all Primitivists. Zerzan's thoughts on the subject are interesting and may have some philosophical worth, but Flood brings them up in his response for little more purpose than I am now. I will say that there are some interesting psychological and cultural implications in regard to increasingly using representations of reality rather than dealing directly with what is being represented. This does not mean that each and every idea espoused by any Primitivist is key or essential to all Primitivist philosophy in general.

When Flood gets to his thoughts on "class conflict," we get some core differences between he and the Primitivists. In the second paragraph of the "class conflict" section he states his belief that "capitalism is very much more adaptable than this" insomuch that it is unlikely that any "crisis will somehow creep up on the ruling class." He goes on to cite the apparent efforts major industries are using to adapt to the coming energy crisis (which he contradictorily admits is largely greenwashing). He goes on to explain: "This is the way capitalism works - crisis are opportunities for new investment..." But he can't seem to fathom the idea that a crisis of techno-industrial capitalism's own making will quite possibly undermine it. He talks about how capitalist processes "almost entirely wiped out the indigenous people of the America's" but he fails to see that it was driven primarily by the urge to consume and progress technologically. If you want farmland to feed the masses and the resources to construct all the nifty gadgets they want... it doesn't matter if you are an industrial capitalist or an industrial anarchist. The fact of the matter is that groups of people want the land preserved (or returned) in the natural form it existed. As soon as you start polluting and terraforming the environmental commons, even for the supposedly good purposes of agriculture, you are going to create conflict with those who feel it, the land and the biosphere, has a right and a common need to exist largely as it is.

This creates an imposition on the lifestyles and beliefs of people who may be smaller in number but who may also have an equally valid (or more ideal) way of life. And this is by no means a minor issue. What rights would techno-industrial anarchists claim to continue polluting and mining and irradiating the environmental commons? Where do you draw the line? And remember that you can't just wish away pollution or wish for more easily acquired resources. This is another point of contention because Flood seems to believe that we can engineer our collective way out of any crisis despite the fact that the overwhelming effects of our engineering has brought us the crisis! And simple replacements for the current resources are not at all guaranteed to manifest. It is quite possible that we have essentially spent and wasted the most efficient non-renewable resources which have now been strip-mined and burnt up. I would strongly suggest reading a recent article from Energy Bulletin entitled Life After Growth.

Flood's piece concludes with this statement: "Primitivism offers no hope and no program for a revolutionary change of society." On the contrary, primitivism offers much hope in positing a sustainable form of society that has existed, and continues to exist, and which may exist in broader form again. In terms of "a revolutionary program for change," we can largely join forces with those who are still trying to preserve their cultures while trying to put a stop to further destruction of the land. These struggles exist in many parts of the world and can manifest in many others still. As hackneyed and incomplete as it is, I myself have put forth an article outlining how I could see a broader Primitivist movement taking root in the United States (but I by no means claim that it is definitive or ideologically pure and unassailable, it's merely a basic starting outline for a Primitivist project).

So, this is where it stands, I will be more than happy to see a response from Flood or any others along these lines. It is quite possible that I have overstated and understated things in this response but I have tried to be intellectually honest and I hope others will be as well, from now on, when discussing these subjects. I will be more than than happy to defend, or concede, any statements I've made in this response.