Sunday, September 30, 2007

International Anarchist Conspiracy Communiqué # 6 (Regarding The Manifold Ways In Which ICE Can Be Fought)

International Anarchist Conspiracy Communiqué # 6 (Regarding The Manifold Ways In Which ICE Can Be Fought) Countless nights have been spent gazing into the Seeing Stones. Many things have been seen inside those murky depths. Everything in there is Black. The future holds much darkness for everyone. We see it spreading already, outside our very doors; the barbed wire fences stretching for miles, the animals in the desert prowling at night for someone to kill, the camps nestled in our backyards, the camps where people hold tightly onto their friends as they slowly die, the camps holding mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers away from each other. The largest branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE agents have walked through malls, guns in their hands, and searched for people who looked “illegal”. ICE agents have pulled mothers away from their crying children. ICE agents truly believe that the people they detain have no human rights. Because of this someone just died in a detention facility. They died because they did not get their medication. They died in a cage, surrounded by a powerful apparatus that did not view them as human. Many people simply do not know of ICE’s existence. The raids and the terror do not directly affect them. Some people ignore what ICE is doing. Some people are forced into ignorance by the system’s control of information. Regardless of all that, the raids continue with ICE growing all the more brazen in its efforts. The question is: How do we wake people up? How do we spread knowledge of what is transpiring all around us? The first problem is that no one is hearing about ICE’s activities. The second problem is that when people finally do hear about a raid it is from the government’s media and paints ICE as an entity that still has a few kinks to work out. The third problem is that when people hear about a raid from someone they are close with they usually have no idea what they could actually do about it. First problem: A good way to expose ICE to the general public (in the opinion of the IAC) is to disturb or otherwise warp the every day lives of the good citizens of the US. This can be done with fliers, graffiti, wheat paste, flash mobs, and wands. If enough witches and wizards are present around an ICE office or other building, passersby might wonder what all those people are doing. Every action on the part of ICE should be met with audible and visible outrage against them. The only way to break the spell cast on everyone is to break it. If we want to have any hope in revealing reality to those blinded to it, our efforts have to be relentless. Second problem: The cheap monsters employed by the government’s media might mention the raids now and again but it is always within THEIR discourse. Those who seriously tune into CNN tend to believe what CNN tells them. All of the news on television is presented in such a way as to make the viewer feel a sense of inevitability. The news rolls on and on, one story and then another. All seeming to be graspable, digestible, contained. Reality on the television is a controlled reality where everything is taken care of in advance. Those watching this reality can do no more than sit in their chairs and watch the machine run its course. We need to use all of our powers to bring reality back to those under our enemies spells. Reality must meet them outside of their doors. It must be what they step into, not out of. If people are late to work because some witches and wizards, pissed off about something called ICE, were romping down the street, reality has met up with them. If people learn that the building next door with broken windows is connected with ICE, reality has met up with them. The reality painted on CNN will begin to look out of focus if there are disturbances on the street and none on the screen. Remember, it is their media. The only thing we can hope to do is feed their spectacle with images. We can never break anyone out through the government’s media. We have to do that with our wands. Third problem: When people finally have broken the last of our enemies spells there should be something they can do about it. Many people are not aware of their own abilities and strengths. These things have been made to seem unimportant in this capitalist nightmare. But if people were encouraged to use their gifts in any manner they chose to, they would find themselves capable of many new things. No one should be forced to join a group or formal organization just because they appear to be the only options for resistance. Resistance should be constant, diverse and cooperative. Everyone is capable of resistance. Our magic should be falling on our enemies from every direction. When everyone understands that every single day that passes is a chance to fight against the dark forces that fill their minds with shadows, the earth will shake and spew fire. A world of fences and cages is the world the government wants. They want every human being within the borders of the US to be subservient to their plans. We are all supposed to serve very specific roles in their economy. When we do not, when we grow uncontrollable, we are put back in place. Or at least they try and put us back in place. They can never control all of us, though, no matter how thorough they are. We care as little for their plans as we do for them. We will not listen to them. They do not value human life above their dollar or their law. Nothing about this country is going to get better for a while. The US is quickly disintegrating and shifting into overt Fascism. But with this shift we must expand the resistance or face the darkness we have all glimpsed in our Seeing Stones. They must be opposed whenever possible because they will not stop. The busses keep arriving in the detention centers and the raids continue. The land is destroyed by the capitalists, creating millions of refugees who then flock to the centers of global capitalism where they are attacked once again. They have no hesitation in what they are doing and will continue on their death march, hoping to take us all with them. If we do not wish to join them in the hell they have created for themselves we need to be constantly in motion. Goodnight, comrades. Remember that we will get through the dark times. They do not understand the magic which is all around them. They have their guns. And we have our wands. Affectionately yours, The International Anarchist Conspiracy (IAC) For further reference: 1 2 3

The Revolution Has Come

Written by EditorsChoice
Saturday, 29 September 2007

The revolution is here. It isn't out there in the world with violence and uprisings and upheaval. It starts within your deepest inner most being. The energy of the revolution is quiet. It doesn't create drama or stories that perpetrate drama. I am a one person revolution. And so are you. As we learn to apply all the Universal Laws to each circumstance of our lives: the Law of Attraction, the Law of Vibration,the Law of Karma, (cause and effect), the Law of Gratitude, the Law of Love, the Law of Allowance, we can draw upon the infinite field of all possibilities that these laws represent, and consciously create the world of our dearest dreams. For many people, the field of unlimited possibilities was first glimpsed when The Secret DVD was released. This movie changed the consciousness of many and continues to do so. Of course, these ideas are not new. But as they are mainstreamed into the consciousness of ordinary people, and as more people open their minds to these concepts instead of resisting them, we will realize a much more interesting world to live, move and breathe in. Old paradigms die hard. Thoughts such as blame, guilt, shame, poverty consciousness, fear of old age and disease, fear of lost youth, pain and death have previously been the reality of most of the people on the planet. Now, opportunities abound for releasing these negative beliefs, thus transforming our lives to the One Person Revolution. Henk Schram and Nikolas Kidd have just launched their beautiful work entitled: "Revolutioniz: Harness The Hidden Laws of the Universe." I read every word and loved the feeling of Peak Potentiality it released within my psyche! I love the idea that I am a One Person Revolution, like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and like Ammon Hennacy, friend of Dorothy Day. Ammon was a family friend in the 1950's and 1960's. He walked everywhere in the name of World Peace and love, like Peace Pilgrim. His headquarters was at the Catholic Worker in New York City where feeding the hungry and raising consciousness was a daily activity. He refused to pay taxes and landed in jail more than I can count, because of these acts of protest. He learned from his prison experiences that the prison is in the mind. He learned that the sadistic warden was a projection of his own mind. Sources of joy, love and happiness come from the mind, as well. The Kingdom of God lies within us all, as well as the self-imposed prison of neglect and self-punishment. Heaven or Hell--it's your choice. Revolutioniz is a well researched book leading the reader to self-discovery. The ideas presented by the authors are not new, and can be traced to Indigenous Religions, the Tao, ancient China, Greece and Rome. These ideas can also be traced to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Krishna and Mohammad. Universal Truth is present in all of these. Henk and Nikolas have provided a visualization tool software program with the Revolutioniz package. I am REALLY having fun with this. The idea is to frame a goal whether in the realm of family, business, relationships etc, in the present tense. Visualize your goal with all 5 senses. This helps to make the visualization real and believable and helps you get very excited! As you do the visualization, jump up and down in child-like ecstasy!! Do this three times a day!! Then let go of outcome completely. The software program leads you through the process. You then print out the statements and carry them around with you. Another tool Henk and Nikolas recommend is to always carry around a notebook with you, and write down every idea that flows into your consciousness. Writers are known to do this as a way of honoring the Muse. But the Muse is present in all activities, because life itself is a creative process!! So the notebook serves to record a thought that will be forgotten if this step is skipped. Believe me, I've learned this the hard way! The Laws of the Universe mentioned at the beginning of this article guide us in this revolution and are the road map, if you will. The concept of Gratitude, for instance, is so greatly overused that people walk the talk instead of walking the walk on this one. But I recently had the revelation that all things in my life serve to make me a better person, certainly a person with greater character, a stronger more resilient person. The unseen world has far reaching influences. What I see is not the sum total of anything. And the unseen world is nothing but Love. How could anything be negative, evil or bad? Only my thinking makes it so. I love the prison of my mind!! I love the freedom of my mind!! All of it is who I am. The One Person Revolution is a shared journey. By living it and passing it on, we make the world a better place. But let it begin with me.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

A 19 Year-Old Kucinich Volunteer Responds to Democratic Candidates in "FANTASYLAND"

By Kevin Gosztola Intro The top Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, the two who were the primary focus of the debate yet again (and I make that conclusion by the order that the questions were asked of candidates), proved themselves to be subscribers to faulty logic that involves blaming Republicans and not taking responsibility within the party for failures in the past seven years. Obama used jargon such as “bad options and worse options”, “no promises”, “country at crossroads” and “need someone to bring people together”, “take on special interests”, “telling truth even when it’s tough”, “everything should be on the table”, etc. Clinton used jargon such as “I agree with Barack”, “don’t have votes”, “don’t want to talk about what might or what might not happen” (hypotheticals), “not gonna answer”, “bipartisan commitment”, “fiscal responsibility”, etc. The “top two” candidates, which have been decided to be the “top two” by media coverage and media polls taken, basically spent two hours telling the American people that they will not promise anything, they will not say that change can be made, they will not talk about possibilities even when that may give us insight into the mind of a future leader of America, and they will most certainly avoid answering questions specifically and instead use heavy-handed rhetoric. They will go to Republicans even when president to find out if their plan is acceptable to them or not. In relation to the "top two", the other candidates, appeared to distance themselves from the “top two” and attempt to overhaul their image in the eyes of the American people so they could be more like Kucinich or Gravel. These candidates (Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson) should be thankful that the majority of American people are still unclear on who Gravel or Kucinich is and do not think about them as possiblities for president because they've been blacked out by the media. Through this article, I intend to look at three key elements of this debate that should be focused on. One, I will look at the answers on Iraq. Two, I will look at the health care discussion. And three, I will examine the overall element of corporate power/special interests that Democratic candidates claim to stand against. To help you understand where this article is coming from, understand that this Democratic debate had a high level of tunnel vision preventing it from really discussing the issues, which is what most debates suffer from. It neglected the idea that the two parties are the same and subjecting Americans to a two-party dictatorship. It neglected to look at the fact that Democrats are moving away from progressive and liberal ideas that are supposed to be the crux of the Democratic party. In essence, it neglected to ask if the party is anything more than one whose mascot is a donkey. For with recent failures in Congress and all other candidates (except Kucinich, Gravel, and surprisingly, Richardson) unwilling to go after Senate and Congressional Democrats, what can we really expect from these future leaders of America whom we expect to pummel any Republican opponent because polls show a Democrat will skate in whether a Democratic candidate has good policies or not? Think about that as I move through the three key elements. The Iraq Question Tim Russert’s question went something like this: Will you pledge to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013 at the end of your first term as president? Any American who heard that, myself included, must have been put off by the fact that Russert wasn’t framing the debate around getting troops out in the first months in office. Russert had reframed the question so that Obama and Clinton would not refuse to talk because they cannot give “hypotheticals” or make “promises”. So, to play it safe, he moved the date 5 years ahead so that Obama and Clinton could indeed talk about their policies that they have written out and talked of on the campaign trail. This set the stage for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards to become the “war candidates” and not the anti-war ones they claim to be. Only Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, and to some extent, Dodd, really said they would be in no way continuing deployment in Iraq until 2013. By some extent, I mean that Dodd kind-of said the troops would be brought home in his first year or second year in office but definitely by 2013. Biden is an exception to the whole 2013 projection because he has a plan for de-facto partitioning of Iraq and federalizing the nation that, according to him, would curb civil warfare and genocide. His plan that I believe few of the top candidates understand but claim to support would mean we stay even further past 2013 if no political reconciliation occurs. This is what Obama is talking about when he calls for a continued military presence. This is why, possibly, Edwards “cannot make that commitment” to end the war. Obama, Edwards, Biden, and even Hillary who spoke out in favor of the Biden Amendment, support Biden whose plan would leave troops in to do what our troops have done in Bosnia for 10 years---“maintain peace.” It was not until Russert had Gravel speak up that sanity was inserted into the discussion on Iraq, which had been regrettably missing. All the other candidates who had spoken prior to Gravel had failed including Kucinich. This is what Gravel brilliantly stated on Russert’s qustion involving what to do to stop the war (and he was asked this because he takes credit for stopping the draft): “By voting every day on cloture 20 days at noon, every single day you vote to override, overcome. Forty days [throughout those] American people weigh in putting pressure. You tell me the votes aren’t there? You go get them by the scruff of the neck.” Russert amplified his remark realizing how important it was to talk about what the candidates thought Congress could do to stop the war. He went and asked Dodd after Gravel said, “If it stops the killing, my God, yes, do it.” Dodd’s response to Gravel’s call to candidates to take action resulted in him saying that this 200 billion dollar request gives Democrats the chance to do what Gravel is asking them to do. What Gravel wants in Dodd’s opinion is unrealistic, but stopping the funding with clarity and leadership is ultimately what needs to be done because this war needs to be halted. It was also at this point in the debate that Gravel boldly went after Hillary for voting for the Iran bill and after Obama for not being there while congratulating Biden and Dodd for voting against the bill which, as he characterized it, is a “fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran.” Richardson went after Hillary for wanting to continue any kind of troop operations because that would “prevent movement forward.” So, it appears that Dodd and Richardson are shifting their position to be more like Dennis Kucinich’s and essentially learning from him. Kucinich again, as he has redundantly stated in all debates or forums since this race started because it is constantly falling on deaf ears or being ignored by the media, said in his statement on Iraq that he has voted 100% of the time against war and all bills to fund the war. He mentioned his plan H.R. 1234, which he has introduced in Congress. And he spoke of how when the Democrats took power in 2006, they were to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home. Kucinich said it is astonishing to hear Democratic candidates stand up here and say this could continue to 2013 and promised that 3 months after taking office he would end the occupation, close bases, bring troops home, set in motion a program of reconciliation (no partition), implement an honest reconstruction program, have a program of reparations, and give Iraq full control over their oil, which currently all the other candidates up on the stage are ignoring. He quoted Lincoln who said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And indeed, he added, if we continue and divide Iraq, more war will occur. He also flubbed and said he would do this by April 2007 but made a nice recovery saying “he’s ready to be president today.” With the recent protest events this September, with all the hullabaloo concerning MoveOn’s ad and this Iran bill, and with more destruction and death occurring each day, there is no doubt in my mind that the American people will not stand the next president being one who plans to continue this war until 2013---and if the Democratic nominee seriously takes this position, he or she stands to lose against a Republican who will challenge his or her anti-war stance heavily and incessantly. Therefore, the candidate must have Kucinich’s stance if they win. Third party candidates know what it means for other candidates to take their stances and make them their own. It’s an honor. For Nader, it has made him feel good. And I would feel honored to know that Richardson, Dodd, and/or Edwards, whose pretending to be Kucinich lately, would adopt Kucinich’s plan fully and carry it out. It would make me feel better about the upcoming primaries because now there would be three good choices and not just one (or two, if Gravel can keep getting campaign contributions necessary to stay in the race). But Richardson, Dodd, and Edwards do not have the track record or character Kucinich has, which means if they choose to steal Kucinich’s thunder, the American people better damn well be sure either candidate is serious about doing what Kucinich plans to do, which is get us out in 3 months and not more than five years, five years, two to three years, or one year. Health Care The debate last night did not ever hone in on the issue of single-payer health care in America. Russert never stepped in and forced the candidates to clarify what they meant by “universal health care”. In fact, Edward dared to say he had the first plan for universal health care before any of the candidates up here when Kucinich has cosponsored H.R. 676 calling for universal-free single-payer health care in America for quite some time now. As Kucinich could be heard saying in the background, “That’s not true.” All of the candidates except him want this “quality and affordable health care” that private insurance companies have been pushing upon Americans for decades now. They don’t want change---they just want to regulate it better. As Edwards sought to falsely frame himself as the best health care candidate while Hillary tried claiming to be the “health care president”, he said, “I hear a bunch of people talking who have been in Washington a long time and that everything needs to be done there---it’s like the rest of America doesn’t exist.” He went on to highlight that other candidates are “gonna have a bunch of Washington insiders, insurance companies, drug companies, lobbyists” and they will “figure out together” the health care issue while the rest of America is excluded. That’s all well and good, but Edwards is misleading the American people. The report on, ranks John Edwards 6th in campaign contributions from “health care professionals” or what I infer to be health care companies who have a stake in privatized health care (and if this is wrong, readers please help me correct my inference) with $246,926 in campaign contributions from them. Kucinich has only taken $10,500 and is in the bottom five. John Edwards has collected $81,750 from Insurance and ranks 8th here, while Kucinich is last with $500. John Edwards has managed to only collect a small sum from Pharamaceuticals/Health Products thankfully and that total is $5,650. Kucinich is at $1,050. But in regards to Edwards’ statement on lobbyists, he has collected $13,500 while Kucinich has collected none because he, unlike Edwards, believes in refusing money from lobbyists. That makes Kucinich more capable of sticking up for the rest of America. The point of referencing this report is to show that Edwards indeed is allowing health care companies, insurance, pharmaceutical drug companies, and lobbyists to be at the table with him despite what he says. He will be talking to these people when choosing to not support single-payer health care. He cannot stand up here and speak this garbage about Washington excluding Americans when he is actively engaged in the act he's condemning. We Americans call people who do this hypocrites. And while he may have a plan that is expected to have a result like that of the single-payer health care system Kucinich is fighting for, it won’t reform health care. It won’t set America on track and it certainly isn’t the most comprehensive reform out there. A complete revamping through H.R. 676 is more comprehensive than his or any of the candidates’ plans. All the other candidates’ plans emulate Hillary’s plan in that they resemble a past Republican plan for health care, the Lincoln Chafee plan. For as much as we are concerned with Republicans being evil, the fact that the plans resemble each other or are very similar should frighten people and make Americans steer clear of all candidates except Kucinich. Democrats Claim That They Stand Against Corporate Power Every candidate claims they will take on special interests and/or that they will work with corporate interests so the American people can have change. What exactly does that mean? Do these candidates really have that capability? With the issue of Social Security privatization, only two candidates, Kucinich and Richardson came out and explicitly stated that privatization should be taken off the table. Clinton was talking corporate rhetoric and calling for “fiscal responsibility”, “bipartisan commitment”, and looking at the context of those to see what else can be done. This would involve leaving “all options on the table”. Obama handled the issue exactly like Hillary seconding all of what Hillary said. Both failed to commit to raising the tax cap to a level above $97, 500 and instead, chose to weigh down the discussion with hubris. Hillary even explicitly stated she would put “nothing” on the table for solving social security during the debate. Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich all called for raising the taxes because that is what must be done to confront the possibility of cutting benefits or doubling taxes. Others understood, as Dodd referred Obama’s and Hillary’s talk, that we do not have to use “draconian measures.” As Kucinich said “unless we have a president who states very clearly, no privatization” there will be a continuation of problems in America. In short, those who can’t give “hypotheticals” do not deserve to be president. Smoking made it into the debate and all candidates were asked to say if they would support a national law to ban smoking in public places. Obama and Hillary again chose rhetorical hubris. Obama said, “I think local communities are making nice strides.” Hillary said she was not in favor of a national law. Both were not able to support the law. Could campaign contributions from tobacco companies (Clinton- $32,300 or Obama-$7,885) have anything to do with this? After all, every other candidate was in favor of the ban including Dodd (who surprisingly leads the Democrats in campaign contributions from tobacco companies, according to Like Kucinich said, “Wait a minute. I’ve been breathing in a lot of secondhand smoke here tonight. You bet I’ll go for a national law.” Hadn’t we all been breathing in secondhand smoke? Seriously though, he had no problem calling for a ban because he, like Edwards and Gravel, has not accepted campaign contributions from any tobacco company. Kucinich is the only one who can stand up to corporate powers, and the success story he has in his past, which Americans should be impressed by, proves that. Americans should cease upon the chance to vote for a man who “took a stand on behalf of the people of Cleveland” when mayor “to save a muncipal electric system” that was threatened when “the banks, utilities in Cleveland---private utilities---were trying to force” him into selling the system. As Kucinich states, “On December 15, 1978, I told the head of the biggest bank when he told me I had to sell the system in order to get the city’s credit renewed that I wasn’t going to do it.” He explains that he knew where he came from and remembered his parents struggling to pay for utilities and could not allow utility bills to skyrocket. He added that this act showed he had "the ability to stand up for the people.” He campaigned in 1994 with the slogan “Because I Was Right” and won in the state senate race and later. In 1996, he won a congressional seat on the slogan that he would “Light Up Congress” Having saved the municipal electricity system, he got what he deserved, respect. And he should and will continue to gain respect of Americans because no other candidate has a success story like this to show they can stand up to corporate interests or special interests. Conclusion Naturally, this is an extremely biased account of the debate because the entire time I watched it I was looking to see how Kucinich was better than the other candidates. That way I could exploit those pros so that the campaign could make much needed gains on leading candidates. However, Kucinich in a way let me and his supporters down. In the past, Kucinich has chided candidates who speak in “soundbites”. That was essentially what he did for most of the debate. Kucinich was arrogantly crying out responses that sometimes ignored what had been said earlier. Instead of singling out "FANTASYLAND" remarks, Kucinich chose remarks that wreaked of desperation. Sometimes he just responded to questions and what other candidates had said which is what I want him to do. But most of the time especially in the lightning round everything led to that’s what a Kucinich Presidency would be like or this is the program that I propose to do this and this. I also think he has got to mask that smug smile because it’s offensive to people who don’t understand that he’s right. A more humble approach would mean containing that smile, which I love but realize people are put off by it, and just focusing in on how to bring in all of what the candidates have said and respond to it. He should still smile and still charm people---but I wish he would not look like the comedic relief for the debate always. If he could say what he is saying like Obama or Clinton does, that would boost the American people's confidence in him to lead so much. Thankfully, he redeemed himself at one point in the lightning round and so, I have to forgive him for not finding a less arrogant way to talk.” And this is the note I will conclude on, the note where he responded to Russert’s question on Greenspan’s call for a phased in three dollar a gallon gas tax. Kucinich said no and said there’s also something else he said: “He said the Iraq War was about oil something I said on Meet the Press, Tim, on February 23, 2003. I think that we need to make sure that the next president was right about Iraq, was right about the PATRIOT Act. You can have a president who was right about Iraq and voted against it from the beginning and against the funding. You can have a candidate who is for a single-payer health care system, one who would stop the PATRIOT Act, or you can have a president who’s tall.” We all know you can’t teach an old dog to do new tricks. If you feel like I do, than you know you’ve got to take action and stop putting up with Democratic candidates who are in “FANTASYLAND”. Watch the debate here:

Independent Voters Rejecting Democrats and Republicans

Stewart A. Alexander for President Peace and Freedom Party Socialist Party USA September 29, 2007 As the opposition to the Iraq War continues to mount across America and around the world, many independent voters are now rejecting the candidates of the two corporate parties, the Democrats and Republicans, and are considering third party candidates. The Iraq War is the greatest factor that is shifting the political tide in America and the shift is in the favor of third political parties and independent candidates. Yet the war is not the only factor that is causing voter to look beyond the Democratic and Republican Parties; working class people are taking hits from all directions and there are major challenges for all groups. A majority of Americans are turning off the weekly popularity contest, or debates, that the corporate media continues to air; the debates lack any intrinsic values and are only designed to shape public opinion. Most often voters must research independent media sources, such as the Internet and Indymedia, to gain information about third political parties and third party candidates. America's corporate media has narrowed the field of presidential candidates down to 5 or 6 Democratic and Republican front-runners to consolidate the political powers for corporate America. The front-runners of both parties are offering no real solutions to the complex issues facing working class people and they are the candidates that have resolved to continue the occupation of Iraq and the Middle East. The war is the number one issue with most voters and as the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates begin to boaster their commitments to continue the Iraq occupation, many independent voters are beginning to look at third party candidates for answers; to end the war and to address the multitude of issues affecting working class people. Young voters are greatly concerned about the war and are strongly objecting to any hints of a national draft to continue the occupation. Young voters are also concerned about the cost of education and the weak job market. College tuitions have been climbing across the nation and the prospects of getting a good paying job after graduating is becoming more difficult year after year. Working families are concerned about the cost of living, shrinking wages and working longer hours. Many unions and union workers are concerned about losing good paying jobs to foreign markets; competing with cheap labor in Latin America and in Asia. Millions of Baby Boomers have become disenchanted with America's two party system because it is a system that has failed to evolve and the two parties are not meeting the growing needs of today's seniors. Millions of Baby Boomers are approaching their mid-fifties and sixties and retirement only remains a distant hope. Many seniors are coming out of retirement to re-enter the job market well into their sixties and seventies just to make ends meet or to keep food on the table. Today 47 million Americans are without health care coverage and the Democratic and Republican candidates have failed to offer any viable solutions that will provide for the health care needs of the nation. Both parties have continued to make sure that the profits of the big insurance companies remain protected at the expense of small business owners, voters and working class people. Millions of independent voters are working class people that have lost their homes during this major crisis in the mortgage lending industry. Today it is being projected that 2 million Americans will lose their homes in 2007 and the projection is that another 3 millions Americans will lose their homes in 2008. While the mortgage lending crisis continues to ravage neighborhood across America, the Democrats and Republicans are only watching millions of Americans lose everything. It is likely 2008 will produce major changes in the political landscape across America. Millions of voters that are presently registered Democrat or Republican will be voting for the candidates that are addressing the issues that will affect their families, income and their future. The Republican Party and the Republican presidential candidates are suffering the blows of the Bush Affect. Among independent voters less than 25 percent approve of the president's handling of domestic and world issues. The Republican presidential candidates are making a point to distance themselves from the president; however, both the Democrats and Republicans can not distance themselves from their poor record on Capital Hill. There is less than a 20 percent approval rating among independent voters of the leadership in Congress on domestic and foreign policy. The 2008 General Election will become a turning point in American politics and will reshape the political landscape for third party candidates. The up-coming election is another turning point for the socialist parties and socialist party candidates; it has been more than 100 years since Eugene Debs first entered the race for president as a socialist candidate at the beginning of the 20th Century. The National Convention for Socialist Party USA is scheduled for the weekend of October 19-21; the convention will be meeting in St Louis Missouri. There are 11 presidential hopefuls seeking the party's nomination. For more information search the Web of: Stewart A. Alexander for President; Socialist Presidential Candidates at America's Crossroads. homepage: homepage:

Friday, September 28, 2007

Chomsky Bites Back At Rauch

Notes From a Gadfly, by Jonathan Rauch Thursday, September 27, 2007 The letter to the Washington Post that follows was written as an experiment, to see just how low the editors would sink in their efforts to block a book containing evidence and analysis that they do not want to reach the public. The letter is a response to a crude and vulgar diatribe, in the form of a review of my collection Interventions. In response, I wrote a point-by-point refutation of each charge, a straightforward matter, as the editors doubtless understand. The letter was sent to the Post immediately, altogether four times, with a request for acknowledgment of receipt. Unpublished, no acknowledgment of receipt. Two weeks after the review appeared, Sept. 16, the Post did publish two letters responding to it. The letters were critical of the review, but acceptable by the standards of the editors, because they left the lies and slanders standing -- the authors could have had no way to refute them without a research project. I think it is fair to take the editors' silence to demonstrate that they know precisely what they are doing, and are too cowardly even to acknowledge receipt. -- Noam Chomsky * Editor Washington Post Jonathan Rauch's review of my Interventions (WP, Sept. 2) brings to mind Orwell's famous observations on the "indifference to reality" of the nationalist, who "not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." ...

italiany anarchy and the nutella dilemma

Submitted by mire on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 8:33am.

(and by the way yes I am Italian)

last nights conversation on anarchy was very interesting and I am fully aware that the thread could go on forever on that theme that circles in an infinite loop upon itself being part utopian philosophy part linguistic riddle and part much else. But if I should conclude I would say my favorite kind of "anarchy" is the one expoused in the early 20th century by italian (and other) immigrant workers like Sacco and Vanzetti (one of two was an anarchist, I don't remember which one, but i know he was the one from northern italy) this could more properly be described now as european style social democratic principles - the main point was social justice and elimination of classes - they were not shying away from violence recognizing that violence was everywhere around them but violence is not what they were about.

anyway, somehow the musings on anarchy got blurred in my mind as the night proceeded with another post concerning a sweet concoction of frozen fruit cognac and nutella and another comment further down claiming "my diet won't permit it!"

well, that posed quite a dilemma as i was fighting the sweet craving and determination to "i'll for sure try that tomorrow" with "actually my diet will too not permit it" - this intereference in the discussion on anarchy was troubling and can't say that the two conflicting thoughts were not undermining each other's arguments!

So, to conclude: I am in favor of no rules and particularly no diet rules and therefore yes to nutella

[Thanks to mire for this post]

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Magnificence, The Mirror, & Miles...

* I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions. Whatever I see I swallow immediately Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike. I am not cruel, only truthful ‚ The eye of a little god, four-cornered. Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall. It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers. Faces and darkness separate us over and over. Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me, Searching my reaches for what she really is. Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon. I see her back, and reflect it faithfully. She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands. I am important to her. She comes and goes. Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness. In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish. *

Miles Davis Live Belgrade 1973

Network Maps, Energy Diagrams / Brian Holmes



Untitled (choreographic sketch by by Trisha Brown, 1980)

Network Maps, Energy Diagrams

Structure and Agency in the Global System

La produccion de la nueva geografia, requiere de una serie de nuevos dispositivos de realidad. Es decir este nuevo paradigma reacciona y replaneta no solo una forma deconstruccion de relaciones tanto culturales como sociales. Esta vision GLOCAL es muy importante pues las condiciones tectonicas , las capacidades de las nuevas tecnologias han construdio un hecho, una realidad multiple absolutamenbte evidente pero tambien invisible en sus redes de vinculos y a su vez en el poder de representatividad que estas tiene, es decir ahora con estas nuevas geografias como se representa esta nueva sociedad? cuales son sus espacios de legitimizacion? como son estos espacios de regeneracion, de re-apropiacion y de re-formulacion cultural?


The Internet is the vector of a new geography – not only because it conjures up virtual realities, but because it shapes our lives in society, and shifts our perceptions along with the ground beneath our feet. Networks have become the dominant structures of cultural, economic and military power. Yet that power remains largely invisible. How can the networked society be represented? And how can it be navigated, appropriated, reshaped in its turn?

Reflecting in the early 1980s on the spatial chaos that technological and financial developments had impressed upon contemporary cities, Fredric Jameson pointed to the need for “an aesthetics of cognitive mapping” to resolve “the incapacity of our minds, at least at present, to map the great global multinational and decentered communicational network in which we find ourselves caught as individual subjects.” He conceived this cartographic aesthetics as a collective pedagogy, whose challenge would be to correlate the abstract knowledge of global realities with the imaginary figures that orient our daily experience. Epistemological shifts, pushed forward by the use of sophisticated technical instruments, would need to be paralleled by the deployment of radically new visual vocabularies, in order to produce a clearer understanding of contemporary symbolic relations (social roles, class divides, hierarchies) and a fresh capacity for political intervention in the postmodern world. Only by inventing “some as yet unimaginable new mode of representing” could we “again begin to grasp our positioning as individual and collective subjects and regain a capacity to act and struggle which is at present neutralized by our spatial as well as our social confusion.”1

Twenty years later, what has become of the mapping impulse? What new forms of cartography have arisen to chart the virtual/real spaces of the present? What kinds of agency do they permit? What modes of social organization do they foster? Can critical and dissenting maps be distinguished among the established and dominant ones?

ascoreapr2003.gif centersperipheries.jpg Skitter Graph / Centers & Peripheries (click for enlargements)

Let’s start by looking at an impressive technical and aesthetic feat: the “Skitter Graph” by the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (Caida) – an academic offshoot of the military-industrial complex, based in the city of San Diego. This map shows a record of peering sessions between some 12,500 “autonomous systems” (basically equivalent to Internet Service Providers, or ISPs).2 To produce it, twenty-five different monitoring points run a “traceroute” program known as Skitter over a period of two weeks, following packets from over 1,100,000 IP addresses. The researchers analyze the path of the packet stream, which is only considered significant when it goes outside its autonomous system of origin. Information from the Border Gateway Protocol database is used to track each message back to a localized ISP. The graph displays the major link lines between the autonomous systems, and represents the quantity of outgoing connections per ISP, placing the lower values on the edges, in light blue, with higher intensities as you move toward the center, in dark blue, violet, orange and finally yellow. But to give all this data the form of a world map, it is also organized by the geographical location of the ISPs – or at least, their head offices – which are distributed around the circle according to longitude.

The autonomous systems fall into three major groups. At the bottom are those in North America — from San Jose and Vancouver to the Eastern seaboard — clearly dominating the Western hemisphere. Slightly further east are two exceptions: Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo/Rio, indicating the only significant connectivity in South America. Next comes Europe, with a great arc of ISPs stretching from London to Moscow; Pretoria falls in the middle, the one African city to be mentioned. On the upper left is Asia, with peak intensities in Tokyo, Seoul and Hong Kong, and lower values in Singapore, Perth and Sydney. The immensely productive population of mainland China barely shows up on this map of outgoing connections.

The Skitter Graph presents the raw facts of location and transmission: a geography of unqualified information flow. But what does it tell us about social relations? It can be compared to the map of “Centers and Peripheries,” elaborated by the geographer Denis Retaillé in 1992 and published in a 1994 volume on the “globalization of capital” by the economist François Chesnais.3 This map shows three things. First, a circuit linking the United States, Western Europe and Japan, the so-called “Triad” regions, which form a “global oligopoly” accounting for the majority of industrial and financial exchanges. Second, the major nodes of the world network, represented by densely outlined circles. And third, the hierarchical relations between the regions, as described with these categories: center; periphery integrated to the center; annexed periphery; exploited periphery; abandoned periphery. Chesnais performs a Marxist analysis, showing how globally fragmented production lines are coordinated through the computerized circuits of the financial sphere. His map describes the hierarchy of social relations in a post-national era, when no political formation can erect any substantial barrier to the dictates of capital. And it reveals the near-perfect correlation between the graph of virtual flows and the geography of human exploitation.

Having identified a dominant map, I now want to ask the political question. Where do the forces of resistance come from, and how do they gain agency in an era of planetary management and control?

To get an idea, you can log back onto the Caida site and look at an animated version of exactly the same information used in the Skitter Graph (try it here and refresh after the page has loaded for a few minutes, or better, download the flipbook animation). Each frame of this movie-map is a snapshot of Internet usage across the world during a few hours time; five different images were compiled every two days, over a period of some eighteen months. The result is an extraordinary visual experience. The ISPs turn green and advance toward the center as their connectivity increases; the link lines shift as the routing structure reconfigures to meet the moment’s demands. We watch the diurnal flux of the Internet, and feel the complex, disjunctive rhythm of the global information machine. It’s like the pulsing of a hive, a planetary brain: the cognitive and imaginary activity of untold millions of individuals, establishing far-flung connections. What the activation of the Skitter Graph reveals – as though despite itself – is the micro-political dimension of the global production system: not a stratified representation, but a generative diagram.

The visual spectacle of this animated map can help us to sense the presence of an underlying diagram, in the sense described by Gilles Deleuze: “a cartography that is coextensive with the whole social field.”4 The notion of the diagram, derived from Michel Foucault’s work on the microphysics of power, does not designate a static grid, a preconceived template for the application of a unified force. Rather it describes a productive matrix: a dynamic field where tensions culminate at an almost infinite number of heterogeneous points. Each of these ‘points’ – human beings, but also their material objects and inventions – is entwined in singular and evolving relations to others, relations of power that involve both constraint and freedom. From the interplay of such relations, functional patterns and statistical averages emerge. These can be codified as stratified ‘laws’ within the social sciences. They can be charted in a synoptic table, by representations like the Skitter Graph or the map of centers and peripheries. But beyond the stratified structures, the vital dynamics of each period arise from what Deleuze calls strategies, which can be understood as the generative moves of social experimentation.

Thus we can distinguish between a determinate network map — a geographical representation of structures of networked power, which attempts to identify and measure the forces at play – and an undetermined energy diagram, which opens up a field of possible agency. Deleuze describes the diagram of power as “highly unstable or fluid… constituting hundreds of points of emergence or creativity.” His aim is to indicate the openness, the possibility for intervention that inheres to every social relation, because of the limited but real power that flows through each of the participants. Thus at its point of application, where individual behavior is molded into functional patterns by the convergence of mutually reinforcing constraints, power can also fold in upon itself, producing resistance and alterity through its own redoubling in the subject, then its subsequent dispersal. This understanding of the way that social hierarchies can be altered or dissolved by a deliberate twisting or counter-application of the very forces that make them cohere was the fundamental breakthrough of French critical thinking in the late 1979s and early 1980s, going beyond the deterministic schemas of traditional Marxism (even that of Louis Althusser), but without abandoning the description of dominant structures. At stake here is a fundamental concept of resistance and exodus. Two decades later, that epistemological breakthrough has lent momentum to an aesthetics of critical and dissident cartography, capable of twisting the techniques and visual languages of network maps away from their normalized uses, and thereby pointing to a place for autonomous agents within the global information grid.

Jameson saw the correlation of abstract knowledge and imaginary figures as key to understanding contemporary symbolic structures, and regaining the capacity to act within them. A range of recent mapping projects, all dealing with the forms of social organization, will serve as exemplars of this process. They can be arrayed within a circle marked by four cardinal points and traversed by two major oppositions.


At the top of the compass, an initial group of maps offers critical depictions of hierarchically concentrated cultural, economic and military power. At its polar opposite, another group invokes swarms of self-organizing singularities. In the right-hand quadrant are diagrams of social networks in the process of constitution, represented either in their tendency toward the concentration of power, or in their moment of dispersion into all-channel meshworks. And in the left-hand quadrant, opposite these constitutive diagrams, we find the cartography of dissemination, which traces and effaces the footfalls of wanderers in the global labyrinth.

The cardinal examples of the first group are the flowcharts by Bureau d’Etudes, such as “The World Government” (2003), which can be seen as a culmination of the critical analysis of globalization carried out scholars and social movements since the early 1990s. This information map uses pictograms to represent over forty different categories of actors, linked into a continuous and contradictory network. At the center is a financial core, populated by transnational investment groups. Around these groups, in a structure of nested rings, are the most powerful nation-states, themselves subsumed under regional or strategic ensembles. Major industries, service providers and transnational organizations appear in direct or ambiguous relations to these blocs. The effect is one of arresting detail, compelling the eye to a seemingly endless iteration of links. But if you draw back, this extraordinarily complex map reveals rounded, almost cosmological forms, small enough to be seen in a single gaze.


“To understand a real thing in its totality we always tend to work from its parts. The resistance it offers us is overcome by dividing it,” writes the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. He compares this analytic process to the effect of artistic miniatures: “Reduction in scale reverses this situation. Being smaller, the object as a whole seems less formidable. More exactly, this quantitative transposition extends and diversifies our power over a homologue of the thing, and by means of it the latter can be grasped, assessed and apprehended at a glance. A child’s doll is no longer an enemy, a rival or even an interlocutor. In and through it a person is made into a subject.”5 Through miniaturization, the aesthetics of cognitive mapping becomes a way for an individual subject to grasp the complexity of the networked world.

The shift from object to subject propels us from one pole of the compass to its opposite, from hierarchies of power to self-organizing swarms. Howard Rheingold has described this new organizational form, showing how “smart mobs” use mobile devices to coordinate actions in real time.6 But the momentary convergence of mobile, self-organized groups goes back at least to the Zapatista uprising, and was used extensively by the counterglobalization movements. The best examples of what might be called “swarm cartography” have come from activist groups in Spain. “Transacciones/Fadaiat” is a “geography of the geopolitical territory of the Straits of Gibraltar,” compiled in 2004 by independent media producers of the group “Hackitectura,” with collaborations from Tangiers and the Canary Islands. One sidecity map to help spark protests against the Universal Forum of Cultures, widely perceived as a mere prop for real-estate speculation along the waterfront. is a map of power: on a Mercator projection turned upside-down, it shows sea-going migration routes, refugee camps, destination zones, electronic surveillance systems, military installations, internment centers, etc. But the other side traces a complex meshwork of activist groups on both sides of the Straits, showing their interrelations, their meetings, their evolution over time. The aim is not only to represent, but above all to catalyze a future range of possible interventions by autonomous agents, from direct action protests to immigrant support networks, legal cases, satire, subversion and the production of dissident knowledge. A comparable project was completed in 2004 by activist groups in Barcelona, who created a sophisticated

fadaiat-small.jpg click detail for whole map

This strategy of diverse, punctual, recurrent interventions was defined by John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt in their study of Zapatista Social Netwar: “Swarming occurs when the dispersed nodes of a network of small (and perhaps some large) forces can converge on a target from multiple directions. The overall aim is sustainable pulsing – swarm networks must be able to coalesce rapidly and stealthily on a target, then dissever and re-disperse, immediately ready to recombine for a new pulse.”7 Arquilla and Ronfeldt’s formulation has been highly influential – first among activists, but then for the U.S. government, after the attacks of September 11. The glaring contradiction of a direct-democratic strategy defined by military experts and utilized by terrorists might encourage us to ask how networked organizations actually emerge in contemporary society, and how in the best of cases they also dissolve entirely, avoiding the destinies of instrumentalization or hierarchical stratification.

The first question shifts us to the right-hand quadrant of our hypothetical map of maps, to explore the constitutive processes that midway lie between swarm phenomena and hierarchical structures. Social network analysis yields insights here, especially when combined with computerized visualization techniques. The maps by use an “Issue Crawler” to analyze a group of websites, discovering common outgoing links (eg. two included sites both linking to a third one, outside the initial group). Thus they identify a larger network of issues. For example, “Ruckus Camp” starts with the websites of forty-nine organizations, whose common links reveal a remarkably consistent set of almost three hundred activist groups. A more complex document entitled “Climate Change” (pdf) displays a densely interlinked cluster of major international organizations at upper right, relatively isolated from a broader meshwork of NGOs, businesses and domestic governmental agencies. The map illustrates the difficulty for bureaucratic hierarchies to interface with ad hoc civil-society initiatives. But can social network analysis be used to portray the full dynamics of network formation?

ruckus-camp-detail.jpg Ruckus Camp (detail)

An intriguing sequence of diagrams entitled “The case of Sklyarov versus Adobe on the Web” (pdf) shows how a constellation of ephemeral allies comes together to defend a Russian programmer’s hack of a proprietary software application. We see the timeline of a small-scale swarm phenomenon, from constitution to final dispersal. Unfortunately, few network analyses deal with such dynamics. More characteristic is Josh On’s ingenious database project, They Rule, which uses a “friend of a friend” algorithm to generate charts of overlapping membership on the boards of America’s Fortune 100 companies, revealing what are arguably the most robust networks of power in the contemporary world. “They Rule” clearly moves toward the hierarchical maps of contemporary capitalist power compiled by Bureau d’Etudes. But the weakness of all such studies is precisely to focus on what sociologists call “strong ties” – eliminating the play of chance encounters and the insurgency of events that continually reshape social existence.

When power structures coalesce and harden, the specific opposite of network constitution becomes an issue. The last quadrant of our metamap deals with the cartography of dissemination. The idea of a dispersed, subjective cartography is inspired by Michel de Certeau’s opposition between the representational grid of the modern map and the “spatial practices” of walkers in the city, their “opaque and blind mobility,” narrated through word and footstep. “One can follow the swarming activity of these procedures that, far from being regulated or eliminated by panoptic administration, have reinforced themselves in a proliferating illegitimacy.”8 That phrase can perfectly introduce the “Geograffiti” proposal on, which involves spontaneously recording waypoints with a GPS device and associating them with impressions about what’s on that particular spot – all to be inscribed on a website accessible to the mobile devices of other passers-by. The dream is to retell the story of the world with your ideas and emotions, even while moving through it.

Christian Nold gives that dream another twist, with his Biomapping project. A galvanic sensor is wrapped around a person’s finger, to register the so-called “startle response” that provokes a drop in the electrical resistance of the skin. That information, coupled with continuous waypoint recording by a GPS device, produces a map of the participant’s route through the city in cool green dots, punctuated by bursts of stress or excitement marked in red. Psychogeography goes automatic. But Nold foresees critical applications too: the Biomapping unit could be connected to additional sensors correlating stress response with pollution, radiation, noise levels and so forth.


The most beautiful example of cartography in motion is Esther Polak’s “Amsterdam RealTime: Diary in Traces,” where GPS-equipped pedestrians sketch out the city plan of Amsterdam as a record of their everyday itineraries. Their paths appear as lines of light on a black ground, only to be gradually effaced, giving way to the traces of other walkers. But the work is a fragile gesture, fraught with ambiguity: the individual’s wavering life-line appears at once as testimony of human singularity in time, and proof of infallible performance by the satellite mapping system.

The increasing use of Geographic Information Systems to profile the habits and desires of consuming populations makes clear the ways that corporate networks can now reach in to seize the very flux of subjective difference. A company like iMapData sorts such consumer profiles into precise geographic “envelopes” on a digitized city plan (a political jurisdiction, an infrastructure service zone, an area impacted by a major sports facility, a tourist attraction, a natural disaster, etc.). Web access to these maps is sold to businessmen who want to make strategic marketing decisions on the go. Even more impressive is the integration of such private-sector archives to government databases, themselves keyed to the new biometric passports with which security forces seek to track entire populations caught up in the frenetic mobility of the present. An International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance has been mounted to warn the public of the dangers that may lie ahead.

Critical and dissident cartographies arise against the background of these dominant mapping technologies. They appear as counter-behaviors in Michel Foucault’s sense: deliberately denormalized refusals of the reason of state – that is, of transnational state capitalism – elaborated with and against the very tools that consolidate the control society.9


1 Fredric Jameson, “Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review no. 146 (July-August 1984). 2 See the graph and an explanation of the discovery processs at I used the 2003 version. The animated map, discussed below, is accessed on the same page (download the flipbook version). 3 François Chesnais, La mondialisation du capital (Paris: Syros, 1994), p. 26; adapted from M. F. Durand, J. Levy and D. Retallé, Le Monde: espaces et systèmes (Paris: Presses de la Fondation des sciences politiques, 1992). 4 Gilles Deleuze, Foucault (London: Athlone Press, 1988), p. 34. 5 Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 23. 6 Howard Rheingold, Smart Mobs (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2003). 7 D. Ronfeldt, J. Arquilla, et alii, The Zapatista “Social Netwar” in Mexico (Rand Corporation, 1998), chapter 2, available at 8 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: UC Press, 1984), pp. 91-96. 9 See Michel Foucault, Sécurité, Territoire, Population (Paris: Gallimard/Seuil, 2004), pp. 195-219 and 362-365.

link brian holmes

Jose Llano Arquitecto, Diseñador de Delitos & Coreografo del Deseo editor aparienciapublica
__________________________________ AMERICA has a rest, where you want to be

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

A Crazed Girl

* That crazed girl improvising her music. Her poetry, dancing upon the shore, Her soul in division from itself Climbing, falling She knew not where, Hiding amid the cargo of a steamship, Her knee-cap broken, that girl I declare A beautiful lofty thing, or a thing Heroically lost, heroically found. No matter what disaster occurred She stood in desperate music wound, Wound, wound, and she made in her triumph Where the bales and the baskets lay No common intelligible sound But sang, 'O sea-starved, hungry sea.' * William Butler Yeats

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

1,000 Attempt Citizen's Arrest of Bush at UN; Blocked by Police, 10 to 12 Arrests

9/25/07 A citizen's arrest warrant has been issued! Please do your duty and see that it is served! As George Bush made his appearance and speech today at the United Nations in NYC, 1,000 people issued a citizen's arrest warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The day began with twelve separate feeder marches converging from across the city, consisting of perhaps several hundred protesters. The people carried 20 large coffins with them and marched from all five boroughs toward Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza and the UN Building where Bush was speaking. The feeder marches were organized by Arrest Cheney First, the War Resister's League, Witness Against Torture, Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS-NYC) and others. Police had already set up a protest pen outside of the UN for a rally called by the vanguardist World Can't Wait, and quickly moved to herd the marchers into the pens. When members of the War Resister's League exited the pen to deliver the arrest warrant, police arrested 8 of them and grabbed three or four unaffiliated protesters from the pen as well, at approximately 10:30 am. Eventually, the original contingent of marchers and several hundred others got tired of the pens and began to march south on Second Avenue toward Washington Square Park. A few attempts were made to march in the street, but police reacted violently, shoving and pushing marchers back onto the sidewalk. In the process, police also seized any megaphones they saw. Several protesters sustained injuries in these encounters, but no arrests were made. In all, about 500 people made their way to Washington Square Park. The idea of citizen's arrest has its roots in common law, and allows for any citizen to execute an arrest on someone who they witness committing a felony offense. All states in the United States allow for citizen's arrest, except for North Carolina, which follows different statutes. Those undertaking a citizen's arrest can still be held liable in civil or criminal court for any damages they inflict in the process. However, they have full rights to detain and arrest a suspect who they witness in commission of a felony. Applicable felonies in this case include, but are not limited to: treason, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury, conspiracy malfeasance in office, fraud, embezzlement, and kidnapping. Under established international and military law, also, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, for which, as commander in chief, Bush bears command responsibility for the actions of those under his command as well as for his own policies. Under the principles of the Nuremburg Trials at the end of World War Two, Bush would be indictable for all four counts established back then: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace; 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace; 3. War crimes; 4. Crimes against humanity. While the efforts of citizens today to serve an arrest warrant on Bush failed, be advised: the warrant stands. Please do you duty, and try at every opportunity to bring this criminal to justice. Official Press Release: ARREST BUSH FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ARREST BUSH! Antiwar Activists to Bring President to Justice at the UN, Tues., Sept. 25 NEW YORK – George Bush will address the United Nations General Assembly on Tues., Sept. 25. A citywide coalition of antiwar activists are preparing to receive him – and bring him to justice. In the early morning, as New Yorkers are on their way to work, funeral processions will begin simultaneously from different points in the city, bearing coffins toward the UN and converging there at 8:30am. These will symbolize the unrelenting death and suffering caused by the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the illegal detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the network of secret US prisons throughout the world. At the UN, a group of activists will say, in the name of the citizens of the world, “Arrest Bush!” The War Resisters' League, Witness Against Torture, Movement for a Democratic Society-NYC, and other groups are calling upon concerned citizens to join them on Tues., Sept. 25, to participate in the morning funeral procession and then to Arrest Bush! For information on starting locations and times of the funeral processions, please email to: “We must resurrect the dream that created the UN out of the nightmare of World War II. We must show courage, wisdom, and love by acting now to confront a bullying, rogue Superpower which refuses to allow the UN to act in accord with its own charter as world events bring us closer to the threat of expanded warfare and nuclear annihilation. The alarm has sounded. It blares agonizingly in our ears, beckoning conscientious action.” – Kathy Kelly, Other Lands Have Dreams

The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events

The other day while going through some of my books, I came upon The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events by Jane Roberts (Seth) and couldn’t help reading it again.

Beginning in late 1963 Jane started to receive messages from a male entity who identified himself as Seth. Jane would sit and go into a trance (altered-state of consciousness) and in would come Seth. Jane’s husband, Robert Butts, would sit and write down all that Seth said verbatim using a form of short-hand he had developed. Later they would type the sessions up and eventually a portion of it ended up published in books. There wasn’t much editing for Jane and Robert to do since Seth went chapter by chapter and section by section, and would even indicate punctuation and where he wanted emphasis. Basically Seth dictated it in finished form. As I understand it, there is a mountain of material that has still never been published.

I’ve read The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events several times, as I have many of the Seth books. I first became aware of Jane Roberts and the entity or personality that she channelled for over 21 years, Seth, in the early 80’s when I picked up her (their?) first book, Seth Speaks. Even back then in my mid 20’s, Seth Speaks wasn’t so much providing revolutionary new information or ideas to me as it was organizing it; putting form to my thoughts and feelings. As my friend Frank DeMarco’s “Guys Upstairs” say, it resonated.

The following excerpts are from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events.

If you want to change the world for the better, then you are an idealist. If you want to change the world for the better, but you believe it cannot be changed one whit, then you are a pessimist, and your idealism will only haunt you. If you want to change the world for the better, but you believe that it will grow worse, despite everyone’s efforts, then you are a truly despondent, perhaps misguided idealist. If you want to change the world for the better, and if you are determined to do so, no matter at what cost to yourself or others, no matter what the risk, and if you believe that those ends justify any means at your disposal, then you are a fanatic.

There is an enchanting suggestion, solemnly repeated many times, particularly after the turn of the [20th] century: ‘Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better.’

This might sound like a bit of overly optimistic, though maybe delightful, nonsense. To a degree, however, that suggestion worked for millions of people. It was not a cure-all. It did not help those who believed in the basic untrustworthiness of their own natures. The suggestion was far from a bit of fluff, however, for it could serve – and it did – as a framework about which new beliefs could rally.

We often have in your society the opposite suggestion, however, given quite regularly: ‘Every day, in every way, I am growing worse and so is the world.’ You have [group] meditations for disaster, beliefs that invite private and mass tragedies. They are usually masked by the polite clothing of conventional acceptance. Many thousands may die in a particular battle or war, for example. The deaths are accepted almost as a matter of course. These are victims of war, without question. It seldom occurs to anyone that these are victims of beliefs (emphatically) – since the guns are quite real, and the bombs and the combat.

The enemy is obvious. His intentions are evil. Wars are basically examples of mass suicide – embarked upon, however, with all of the battle’s paraphernalia, carried out through mass suggestion, and through the nation’s greatest resources, by men who are convinced that the universe is unsafe, that the self cannot be trusted, and that strangers are always hostile. You take if for granted that the species is aggressively combative. You must out-think the enemy nation before you yourself are destroyed. These paranoiac tendencies are largely hidden beneath man’s nationalistic banners.

The end justifies the means. This is another belief, most damaging. Religious wars always have paranoiac tendencies, for the fanatic always fears conflicting beliefs, and systems that embrace them.

If you have not read any of the Seth books and would like to, these are a good starting place.

  • Seth Speaks
  • The Nature of Personal Reality
  • The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events
  • The Unknown Reality (Volumes 1 and 2)
Posted in Life on Earth

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]