Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts

17 October 2020

Violence, instability to spread in the US - election result won’t matter


In 2016, the late leading US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein wrote of a problem of growing instability in the US

We are used to thinking of instability in states as being located primarily in the global South. It is about those regions that pundits and politicians in the global North speak of “failed states” in which there are “civil wars.”

The late sociologist noted the “golden era of U.S. dominance of the world-system began to come undone circa 1970 and has been unraveling ever since, and increasingly.”

On protests and the formation of anti-government forces in the US, Wallerstein’s commentary tells us:

The problem is that both the federal and local governments are unsure what to do. They “negotiate” for fear that asserting their authority will not be popular. But when the negotiations fail, the government finally uses its force. This more extreme version of action may soon spread. It is not a question of moving to the right but of moving towards more violent protest, towards a civil war.

All this time, the United States has been truly losing its authority in the rest of the world. It is indeed no longer hegemonic. The protestors and their candidates have been noting this but consider it reversible, which it is not. The United States is now considered a weak and unsure global partner.


It should be noted that this commentary from 2016 was authored before Donald Trump was elected as president. Even during Obama’s years in office, the US was in a steep decline, falling out of favor with its allies.

The US may not be faced with civil war as a result of some specific crisis following the election this year, as suggested by many. However, there should be no doubt that the social conditions leading political violence and disintegration are growing in the United States and unlikely to be affected by any election.

In an earlier commentary in 2015, Wallerstein had concluded that the prevailing policies of a state do not change even if radicals or outsiders are elected. Referencing seemingly disruptive election results in Europe, he stated, “in the end neither the geopolitics of the country nor the middle-run economic options of the country seems to have changed”.

This does not mean people should refrain from voting, but it does mean no-one should expect real change as a result of just casting a ballot. The same pig putting different-colored lipstick on doesn’t bring about fundamental change. – ClubOfInfo
Read More »

1 June 2020

2020 protests: American Spring? US regime-collapse?


The Trump regime is presiding over a viral outbreak that slaughtered over 100,000 Americans, embarassing the US as the worst-hit country in the world. It is likely to kill even more, and meanwhile the failing regime carries out abductions and killings of its own.

Here are some points to be aware of:

* People from neglected and brutalized African American communities are reported to overwhelmingly be the victims of both the COVID-19 outbreak and also police violence. The infamous killing of George Floyd was only the most public example of the latter, but the rage it unleashed was aimed at avenging all similar such murders. Neglect, as well as living in what is effectively a failed state under a racist military occupation modeled on the armor-plated brutality of Israel, put these communities in desperation and led to inevitable resistance.

* High-level US government insiders from the regime's Republican and Democratic wings (e.g. Susan Rice) are hostile to the protesters, exposing the sham two-party system.

* US media are hostile to the protesters, exposing servile pro-regime media outlets such as CNN.

* Celebrities keep indicating support to protesters but condemn the actions of protesters and offer no substantive criticism of the regime, showing they are stooges who defend the status quo.

* Social media platforms appear to be allowing encouragement of the protests, although this is based on their own sensitivity to their users' wishes and is likely to terminate if the regime comes into danger and decides to put pressure on social media.

* Trump is pursuing labelling the protesters as "terrorists".

* Trump hid in a bunker during protests.

* Trump is considering military action - at the level of the Federal government itself - against the protesters. This could effectively mean a regime crackdown against citizens all across the US.

* Police have stuggled to respond to the protesters, with protesters regularly gaining the upper hand and managing to force even armed security personnel out of buildings and public spaces. Given that the US police are highly militarized, this result is astonishing.

* The ongoing COVID-19 lockdown probably hampers the regime's ability to coordinate a response to its deteriorating situation. Parts of the US government will struggle to meet and coordinate responses as many officials are likely to be self-isolating or unable to attend physical gatherings, whereas protesters are free to take whatever action they wish.

In terms of how technology impacts the future trajectory of this situation (the main topic of this blog), we are in a unique situation. Although the internet was used to disseminate the footage of George Floyd's murder, we are no longer seeing dissidents forced to interact online while the regime takes action in the real world. Instead, members of the regime have to stay at home in front of a screen while protesters and dissidents are the ones who can take action in the real world.

Where this will go is hard to predict. It may continue to escalate to the point that there is a deployment of military force by the US government against protesters - something already being considered by Trump according to some reports. This would be hugely embarassing to the US, a severe stain on its human rights record for decades to come, and potentially seen as a humiliation of America in the ongoing cold conflict with China and Russia. Blaming Russia or China for it will only make this situation even more embarassing to the US, since this only turns the tables on a country constantly funding and leading protests in other countries.

On the other hand, the US government may manage to drain the energy of the protesters through mass arrests and downplay the impact of the protests through its servile mainstream media. Owing to the lack of organizing power of the protesters and the fact this is not a planned but spontanous uprising, such a result seems like the most probable conclusion. If on the other hand the protesters begin attacking sensitive sites in Washington DC like monuments and the White House itself, or if protesters begin storming prisons and the armories of the already overpowered police forces, this story could enter a new chapter - for better or worse.
Read More »

26 January 2020

Do Iranians want regime-change in Iran?


The top 3 most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups (extra points for being funded by the US government)


With Iran’s apparently sinister regime supposedly on the verge of collapse every weekend for the last 41 years, you would think people would get bored and stop listening to compromised fake Western news sources.

Also having waited very impatiently for 41 years for the regime to fall, various “Iranians” who dislike the regime are offering their support for US President Donald Trump to bomb their beloved country on their behalf. In doing so, they know Trump would kill millions of Iranians and eradicate Persia’s priceless cultural sites in the process - but it is the price they are willing for other Iranians to pay. Staying on that topic, let’s take a look at the top three most ridiculous Iranian “opposition” groups, all of which either get money off the US government or want it desperately.

#3 “Restart”

The silliest of the three, this is a strange group led by some kind of comedian. More accurately, he is apparently a radio host who believes America will defeat Iran and install him as its new leader if he begs them and posts memes about it on Twitter. Really, he is probably just hoping the US government will believe his claims and donate a lot of taxpayer money for him to live off while he stays in America.

Opposed to the MKO and the Shah-supporters, but even more obsessed with asking America to bomb Iran and magically install him as the ruler of a new Iranian regime, the guy in charge of “Restart” is only active on Twitter. He spreads a lot of spam there and appears to have no real support, but uses a number of memes about Donald Trump and the hashtags #MIGA and #MakeIranGreatAgain to pretend he has the support of Trump. He seems to have successfully duped a number of conservative Americans at least online, who don’t know the difference between him and the other two groups. He claims to have 20 million members in his “opposition” group but you can only find a few on Twitter, and their accounts are fake.

#2 Shah supporters

Unemployed US resident Reza Pahlavi (some dunce who thinks he is the king of Iran) has supporters who think he can become the puppet dictator of Iran, restoring the failed US-backed regime overthrown in 1979. If that is his goal, he seems to believe he can do it by appearing in interviews in US military propaganda, rambling about the “democracy” he doesn’t want in Iran and praising the US government’s idiotic policies and missteps in the Middle East. Although almost non-existent among Iranian expatriates, his “opposition” group is possibly bigger than #3.

If we consider the fact the original Shah was a US puppet, it is highly likely this wannabe puppet is also paid by the US government and kept as a future dictator if the US tries to forcibly change the Iranian regime. His appearances in news sources compromised by the US government seem to strengthen that possibility.

#1 MKO

Largest of the three, this one might confuse you if you are a US anti-Iran conservative. A Marxist group who originally opposed the Shah of Iran before joining Saddam Hussein’s regime in the Iran-Iraq War, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization is considered a terrorist group in Iran and hated by the population. They were even also blacklisted as a terrorist group by the US government until recently.

Its bizarre ideology mixing communism and Islam and its history of violence have not been noticed by anti-communist US crusaders, who somehow support this group as the rightful rulers of Iran if the regime falls. Led from Europe by Maryam Rajavi, the now pro-West sycophant group is cheered by neocon drone-enthusiasts who call for America to attack Iran to install its power-hungry members as Iran’s new regime. While this may be what they actively call for, it is likely that the group really just wants dole from the US government like the other two. Despite that, the organization has killed Iranian scientists and other civilians on US orders in recent years and helped the US’s policies to immiserate and oppress Iranians.

Trump administration figures like John Bolton considered the MKO to be ideally placed to rule Iran, and promised them that the Iranian “regime” would be overthrown and the MKO would be celebrating with US conservatives in Tehran by 2019. Despite the MKO continuing to kill Iranian civilians, after 41 years it is no closer to the bloodthirsty regime-change it talks about.

What happens next?

In conclusion, it isn’t likely any of these dodgy and untrustworthy groups of exiles will ever be in power in Iran. At best, their support for US action against Iran will only fuel further US sanctions that will harm the welfare of Iranians over the coming decades or culminate in limited US bombing raids against Iranian nuclear reactors, causing a huge loss of civilian lives. In such a case, these ineffective groups will only be blamed for their support of the US actions and find it even harder to continue operating.

Finally, if the US does attack Iran and force one of these groups to form a puppet government, they will most likely die on arrival in Iran or end up on US taxpayer-funded life support machines while wishing they stayed in America.
Read More »

17 June 2016

Assange "pretty much" supports Brexit

The Blog


In a televised interview, WikiLeaks founder and political prisoner Julian Assange expressed the view that he supports Britain leaving the European Union.


In the interview, Assange broke down the different camps relating to the EU referendum, ultimately favoring the minority "left Brexit" faction in the debate.

While right wing campaigners who support Brexit want the "old empire" and right wing campaigners who oppose Brexit want the "new empire", Assange characterized left wing opponents of Brexit as reactionaries who think "another world is not really possible". This, he contrasted with the more optimistic left who do believe "another world is possible".

The phrase "another world is possible" is associated with the alter-globalization movement and the World Social Forum, attended by Latin American leaders and global sociologists and left wing academics including Noam Chomsky and Immanuel Wallerstein throughout the years. This sentiment is not necessarily against globalization, but against the negative globalization imposed by the US government and corporations on the world's poor and in favor of positive social globaliztion and mixing.

When pressed on whether he supported Brexit, Assange replied "pretty much". He judged that the British regime is using the European Union as "political cover" for human rights abuses and its subservience to the US, including during his own political persecution by the state.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

12 April 2016

Are the Panama Papers a conspiracy?

The Blog


Although the "leaks" known as the Panama Papers are considered a big story across the world, some are critical of their value and the true forces behind the story.


UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the tax avoidance exposed therein is only the "tip of the iceberg". Meanwhile, many western publications have obsessively tried to implicate Russian President Vladimir Putin in the tax avoidance scandals resulting from the Panama Papers, despite the complete absence of any reference to him in them.

The Papers are already credited with causing the resignation of Iceland's leader, and of stimulating mass protests urging the British regime's PM Cameron to resign immediately.

There is even a conspiracy theory that Vladimir Putin himself orchestrated the Panama Papers, with the lack of US figures named in the leak indicating a high level form of blackmail by Russian intelligence agencies threatening to bring down the US regime or businesses using the scandal. This, according to the conspiracy theory, explains why Putin is not incriminated in the documents, yet neither are US officials and business figures.

Less ridiculous is the view, propagated by WikiLeaks and various hacktivist-aligned experts, that the Panama Papers are too heavily redacted, and that this has been done to the benefit of the US. The leaks also appear to have been sponsored by US-aligned figures and evidence suggests they are "engineered" to benefit the US. The release of the Papers was not a chaotic act of liberation like WikiLeaks' release of US diplomatic cables causing massive fallout for the US regime across the world.


WikiLeaks has itself been asserting via Twitter that the Panama Papers exclude US businessmen and officials from any blame because they are designed mainly to destabilize other countries to serve the US regime's hegemony over them. This view later got cited by Putin himself.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

29 January 2016

West dissidents go after Vladimir Putin?

The Blog


As Vladimir Putin steps up his opposition to US hegemony in Syria, Ukraine and other theaters of confrontation between the powers, supporters of US global dominance demonize all their critics as supporters of Putin.


In response to the demonization, some Western dissidents are starting to focus their criticism partially on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Any criticism of Putin will suffice, even if it doesn't make any sense. This new behavior is based on hysteria and the intense fear of being dismissed as "apologists" for Putin.

Severe punishment is already given to Western journalists for being supportive of Russia or even for being neutral on issues to do with Russia. Journalists have been fired or denied a platform even for being suspected of sympathizing with Vladimir Putin.

Recently, new laws are being drafted in the United States to make anti-Russian propaganda the official editorial policy of all news media establishments. The hysteria produced by such moves is pushing some major dissident journalists and celebrities into issuing anti-Russian remarks, often with no idea what they are talking about.

Because these celebrated dissidents had dedicated their lives to criticizing their own governments, not Russia, they find themselves not knowing what to say to satisfy the hysterical anti-Russian media. Take a look at the different examples below, ranging from the noblest to the most sold-out dissidents.

Snowden the Russian troll?



The noblest. The example of a Western dissident who still doesn't criticize Russia at all despite the hysteria, Edward Snowden leaked information on US illegal domestic surveillance against its entire population. He is a particularly obvious victim of demonization as a pro-Putin spy, due to being lost in transit in an airport in Moscow when the US cancelled his passport and later having no choice but to claim asylum in the Russian Federation. However, Snowden (as well as former Guardian journalist who covered Snowden's story, Glenn Greenwald) has maintained his belief that the US is the primary threat to civil liberties and human rights in the world. Not Russia - and Snowden realizes it is his prerogative as an American to criticize his own "regime" in the US rather than Vladimir Putin's government.

Assange the antiPutin?



Julian Assange, who is also accused of being an agent or otherwise instrument of Putin, has made some token effort to make it look like he not only criticizes the West but also Putin. He has met with members of the anti-Putin group P***y Riot, although it isn't clear that he really supports them or the dark figures at the US Capitol who made them into celebrities.

Assange also confused many in the audience at a televised RT network anniversary discussion, when he claimed that Russia would definitely shoot down British warplanes if they were operating in Ukraine. This, despite the fact that Russia has not directly shot down any warplanes in Ukraine to date, including Ukrainian ones engaged in bombing pro-Russian rebel forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Assange seemed to argue that Russia is hypocritical to condemn Turkey's shooting down of a Russian bomber aircraft in Syria, as the downing was typical of the perfidy of the Russian government itself. However, the claim is ill-considered at best and tongue-in-cheek at worst. Perhaps Assange only said it to confuse some of his own critics, who might have seen him as a Russian agent. Whatever the case, Assange's anti-Russia comment was of poor quality, and not quote-worthy material for anyone who wants to actually build a case against Putin. No political ammunition was really given by Assange for attacking Putin.

Owen Jones, the universalist leftist



Although not as extreme as the next case, Owen Jones wrote a recent shallow article in the Guardian called "Putin is a human rights abusing oligarch. The British left must speak out". Again, as with the Assange remark above, there is nothing quote-worthy in the content there for anyone who really opposes Putin. It appears to be a token article, designed less to support Putin's opponents and more to make Owen Jones look like a "good boy" who the British press will still be happy to tuck into bed.

The actual content just doesn't make any sense and is a dummy case, useless to anyone who opposes Putin. Jones calls for leftists in Britain and the West in general not quite to protest against the Kremlin instead of our own government (as our next case does), but to hope for regime-change in Russia by leftists who oppose Putin. No analysis of Russian politics is given, Jones does not elaborate which "leftists" he is talking about, and the actual leftists in Russia overwhelmingly praise Vladimir Putin's record and have no desire to overthrow him. Jones did subsequently tweet something about Russia's bombing of ISIL as an example of a Russian crime to be criticized alongside Western crimes. However, Russian actions in Syria are massively different from the West in the sense of being legal and based on an indigenous request for help, which differs starkly from Western imperialism.

The level of cross-party support in the Russian political spectrum for Owens' "Putin regime" is massive, and the "embattled democrats and leftists" in Russia to whom Jones is appealing don't merit mention or consideration. Even Jones admits that they are too insignificant to mention by name, insofar as he does not mention them.

Moreover, serious critics of Western foreign policy know that the anti-Putin groups in Russia are all funded by the US State Department. Jones knows it would be insane for him to support those groups and also maintain his role to "criticise Western foreign policy".

Peter Tatchell, lunatic who attacks the anti-war left for not supporting Western regime-change



The most extreme example. Even Owen Jones made a small jab at this guy in his aforementioned article, saying "there is something rather absurd about the baiting of the anti-war left for not protesting against, say, Putin or North Korea". Peter Tatchell's case is already covered by us. Read our special report on his warmongering and advocacy for "no bomb zones" which would require bombing Russians, Syrians and anyone else who gets in the West's way.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

22 January 2016

Mont: Oregon militants should go home

The Blog


Members of the Mont Order society offered their theories on the actions of political militants who took control of a US Federal-owned Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and are holding it "by force of arms".


In sum, the Mont Order denounces the militants and believes they need to "go home". While members are not necessarily standing with the US government if it eventually detains or eliminates these militants, as some members of the political left seem to be, Mont bloggers and activists see the militants' actions as unjustified.

Wave Chronicle Editor Mike Dodd was strongest in condemning the Oregon militants, stating there is nothing noble or worthy in the cause these militants claim to represent. What they are doing amounts to "dumb white hicks being dumb white hicks", he stated. The Wave Chronicle has already made its opposition to the militants clear in a post, which refuted the less condemning posts at The clubof.info Blog and the KN@PPSTER blog.



Thomas L. Knapp, Garrison Center Director, clarified that he doesn't know enough background on the militants and their prior activities to justify their specific actions. They "have done more than "protest"", he wrote in to the Mont Order. Clarifying where he stands, he stated, "In order to decide whether or not I could support that, I'd need to get a better understanding of their grievances, and of what steps prior to this they took to seek redress of those grievances."

Perhaps closest to the actual events was NaughteeisMaxim, a news media curator and Mont Order member. He agreed with the Wave Chronicle's judgment, writing "dumb fight, dumb issue, wrong time", and emphasizing the fact that the militants are not even from Oregon, but are outsiders and are harming the local community, causing unnecessary tensions. He ridiculed the militants, who are ranchers, and their grievances by arguing, "Personally I'm not for some freaken cow rights to graze in Wildlife Refuge Areas and it should be fenced off to keep the cows out of the wet lands, they can graze everywhere else around the area but ranchers must pay for the privilege to graze on BLM land."

The Wave Chronicle wisely points out that the issue of lead poisoning of children by the authorities in Michigan is a "worthy battle" rather than any issue of farmers' property rights, as appear to be at the heart of the bizarre Oregon standoff.

NaughteeisMaxim argued that the militants should "go home", which is also the name of a campaign aiming to evict the occupying militants from the public-owned Wildlife Refuge.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

18 December 2015

Pride in 'Western democracy' is cancer

The Blog


A third commentary has been issued by Mont Order society friend L'Ordre, addressing the Mont Order's third point in its recently conceived "code".


Published via Dissident Voice, the L'Ordre commentary joins two others addressing their own respective portions of the code of the Mont Order society (first point and second point).



More: The Mont Order's unofficial conspiracy

More: Articles tagged as "L'Ordre" items at The clubof.info Blog

In addition, the commentary was republished to the Mont Order content website lordre.net. As with earlier commentaries, the following are important selections of text from the Mont Order commentary, which focused heavily on the idea that democracy is largely false or deserving of heavy skepticism:

  • "anyone proud of “the West” and “democracy” today is as good as cancer"
  • "A person with anti-colonialist credentials must necessarily be skeptical of most so-called democratic regimes today. Frequently, the establishment of democracy is nothing but an idol, used as an excuse to bomb weaker states without effective technological means"
  • "When an “elected” government disagrees with the public, the ruler simply dismisses public opinion or even accuses the public of being terrorists and traitors, as the British Prime Minister regularly does."
  • "Being an elected representative today is meaningless and hollow. It doesn’t mean a person is liked, and, in fact, most of them are hated passionately. "
  • "only a few brats who attended expensive schools are ever raised as a politician."
  • "If it is worthless trickery, as the vast majority of the youth will acknowledge by not participating, then why is so-called democracy maintained in the West? "
  • "Not only are Western democratic regimes not superior or more legitimate than others, but they are inferior and illegitimate because they encourage and excuse crimes against humanity."

L'Ordre, "Illegitimate Democracies: On the Third Point of the Mont Order", Dissident Voice, 10 December 2015


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

6 November 2015

The Tory housing disaster to come?

The Blog


The UK's Housing and Planning Bill, which extends the “Right to Buy” to housing association properties and forces local authorities to sell off their most valuable stock is a "potential catastrophe", a political analyst predicts.


What the Tories call an "opportunity" is in fact threatening only to "further enhance their poor-beater CV", Steve Topple has argued in an op-ed at the Political Sift political and social commentary blog.

Statistics already show 1.4 million households on social housing waiting lists in 2014, which contrasts with only 43,000 new homes being built. Cameron's UK has also witnessed a devastating 55% rise in homelessness since he came to power in 2010. Calling the new bill "self-serving" Topple predicted such legislation would only worsen these already horrifying statistics.

Agreeing with other commentators that the legislation especially attacks poorer families living in rural areas, with no guarantees of where new housing stock will be built, Topple had the following commentary:
The proposed plans to force local authorities to sell off their most valuable properties looks disastrous, at best. Aside from the fact the government is ignoring the fact many of these properties are adapted for the disabled, it also appears to brush over the serious effect it will have on council’s ability to replace these homes.
In addition, Topple comments that the "Right to Buy" will further inflate the housing bubble, which is projected to burst, although the real victims of the bill will be poor families in desperate need of social housing. Accusing the Tory government of running a "chumocracy", he points out that personal debt is already at record levels, but it will not stop Cameron's regime and his cronies from getting the helpless and the poor further into debt.

Housing Associations have already backed the "Right to Buy" legislation, but Topple urges opposition parties to "do everything in their power to stop this despicable legislation" when it comes to a vote in the Commons.


The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

8 September 2015

US Black protesters to receive weapons?

The Blog


Writing at the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS), analyst Ryan Calhoun praised an initiative by a local chapter of the Oath Keepers militia to arm protesters in Missouri with assault rifles.


The Oath Keepers are a decentralized militia in the United States who conform to a libertarian interpretation of the United States Constitution. While Calhoun noted that adherence to the Constitution is not a perfect ideology, with the Constitution itself being responsible for some historic injustices like slavery at certain times, he noted that more faithful adherence to the Constitution may result in a better regime in the United States at this juncture.

The national leadership of the Oath Keepers has continued to hold a "colonial" attitude towards its relationship with the Black communities most subjected to injustice by police forces in Missouri, seeing its role as the defense of businesses from the "rioters", as the American regime prefers to call Black protesters. The local chapter of the group in Missouri, however, has other intentions.

"The Missouri Chapter of Oath Keepers want to arm 50 black protestors with AR-15s", Calhoun points out, and this has caused a kind of schism within the Oath Keepers, as the chapter would prefer to arm the Black community and enable it to defend itself from police brutality rather than simply backing up the police state for the sake of protecting businesses.

Calhoun praised any move to arm the police-occupied Black community for the purpose of "handing over the power of a rifle to men and women who we, as a society, have stripped of the right to self-determination".

Whether or not the Missouri Chapter's efforts succeed, the next time the US police state tries to forcibly suppress protests, the regime might not just have to watch out for Black protesters but for militias of all races who recognize the plight of this minority and its need for armed defense.


The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

3 March 2015

A #Riot Broke Out & No One was Surprised

@RcLibertine.


A riot broke out on February 20 at Willacy Correctional Facility, a Texas prison for “illegal immigrants.” 2,000 inmates demonstrated against their subjection to neglect and overwork. The situation quickly escalated as inmates armed themselves with blunt instruments, swarming the yard and dismantling and setting fire to the structures they’d been shackled to for too long. As the situation grew from prison riot to an inmate takeover of the facilities, guards sought to quell its progress with tear gas, but the wind favored the rioters. As tensions mounted, the inmates faced inevitable defeat, ceding control back to the facility’s managers.

Prison riots are frequent phenomena. Fortunately, this particular riot resulted in no deaths. The costs were ultimately imposed only on the facility’s owners. In fact, this uprising literally shut down the prison. As of February 24, 921 inmates had been transferred to other facilities pursuant to completely vacating the prison.
Many liberal reformists object to rioting as a legitimate tactic of effecting positive change. They cite, as all anti-revolutionaries do, crackdowns on prison life and the possible negative response of outsiders. However, prison riots have historically proven a very useful tool in achieving the demands of malcontent prisoners or at least giving voice to the voiceless. In 1986, a riot broke out at the West Virginia State Penitentiary in response to overcrowding. Guards were taken hostage. Inmates’ lives were lost. But it ended with dialog between the governor and inmates and agreement to the prisoners’ demands.

In Manchester, England the Strangeway Prison saw an extended riot and occupation by inmates which began at a meeting in the facility’s chapel. Guards turned out in force, anticipating prisoner action that day. The chapel services degenerated into inmates letting their captors know precisely what they thought of them. Tensions built and the inmates eventually subdued the guards and took their keys. The actions of the inmates convinced other guards to high-tail it out, securing the prisoners’ first victory and beginning a 25-day stand off.

Prisoners, some having previously only been allowed an hour out of their cells per day, were freed. Riots broke out at other institutions in solidarity with the Strangeway inmates. By the end, £55 million in damage was done and public sympathy for the inmates’ horrendous conditions improved, resulting in national reforms. There are many more cases within prisons and in other oppressive conditions where violence is the best tool for reform.

The people in these prisons do not belong there. In the case of the prisoners at Willacy, they are people who simply don’t have the right government papers, forced to live in makeshift tent cities. Claims that the prisoners caused the riot are backward. The prison officials caused the riot. The state caused the riot. The guards caused the riot. The riot was the inevitable result of locking away and neglecting people who wanted nothing more than to improve their material conditions. It would be a bleak, passionless world where prisons were not burnt to the ground by the people trapped within them.

And no, the horrendous human rights abuses that occur in these facilities are not the results of privatization, as many reformers claim. They are the result of the totalitarian environment that all prisons create. The disposition of a person locked inside a cell, craving human contact, yearning to have his or her own life back does not turn sunnier because the prison is owned by a state rather than by private officials. Perhaps these state contractors will be convinced that their business model is faulty when their facilities begin going up in flames. Empirically, there is little variation in the quality of prison life whether the facility is managed by governments or contracted out. All prisons should be scrapped, scorched, and relegated to the past along with the lash and the hangman. There is no substitute for abolition and there is no prison undeserving of a riot.

Citations to this article

Read More »

3 February 2015

Cable LIES About Title II Reclassification

@fightfortheftr.


Lobbyists for big cable companies are lying to US lawmakers with the intent to destroy the free and open Internet, the only home true freedom of expression has ever known.


It is highly probable that if the Internet isn't protected under Title II reclassification in the United States, the monstrous idea of slowing down the Internet to all but the highest bidder will burden not only the US but spread to the EU countries too. No matter what other political differences we may have among ourselves, it's clear that our duty as citizens of the Internet is to stop them. This vital issue affects us all.

The specifics, as explained by Senator Ron Wyden:
I wrote the Internet Tax Freedom Act. So I want to set the record straight about the false claim being peddled by opponents of net neutrality. They are saying things that aren’t true to try to stop the FCC from acting to protect the free and open Internet. 
The claim: If the FCC reclassifies broadband Internet access as a “common carrier” under Title II, consumers could be stuck with new taxes by state and local governments.
In a word: Baloney.
The facts:
  1. Net Neutrality is not going to invalidate the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA). My colleagues and I knew people would try to tax the Internet if they could. So in ITFA Congress broadly defined the term “Internet access.” It is illegal to tax the internet. Under Title II or otherwise. The FCC could define the Internet as a series of tubes and ITFA would still prohibit taxes.
  1. The “grandfather clause” in ITFA will not allow cities to suddenly open the Internet up to telecom taxes. If the FCC reclassifies broadband Internet, it will not change if states taxed Internet access before 1998. The FCC has broad authority, but it cannot rewrite history.
The bottom line: The Internet Tax Freedom Act will protect the Internet from taxes regardless of how the FCC defines Internet access. 
The opponents of the open Internet aren’t quitting. But the good news: neither are we.
In order to counter the aggressive attempts by some inconsiderate lawmakers to push special interests ahead of the public desire for a free and open Internet, the US public MUST exert pressure of their own. Last year, US President Barack Obama took the side of the Internet, but only a tsunami of popular support for Title II reclassification of the Internet in the United States made this possible.


The solution Americans have is clear: put your own lobbying pressure on top cable executives and and lobbyists who are trying to ruin the Internet.


What you are reading isn't an article of the more balanced kind, because the time for debate is over, and there is no space left for petty differences of opinion on this matter. It is a question of the very survival of the Internet in its correct form.

Failure to hammer the opponents of the Internet and protect this almighty instrument of the public, our means of achieving the freedom of expression that past body politics only fantasized of, would be unacceptable to all of us - particularly those of you who have become dependent on the popular Internet to communicate and unlock the truth.


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

13 January 2015

Re: Why I'm not an Anarchist

. @hjbentham. #order. #startrek. #sciencefiction. #alternatives. #sociology.


An exclusive article from the Order

I agree with every point you make and, even further, I believe welfare including the implementation of universal basic income and free healthcare is also essential to human survival. De facto chaos would not be in anyone's interests and a form of order that is also aligned with equality and justice is in our best interests.

We must keep in mind that antistatism is a broad category and includes not just anarchism but also diverse forces that even clash among each other like separatism, devolution, libertarianism, globalism, anti-borders activism, migration, stateless communism, the science fiction utopia depicted in Star Trek, and so forth: all of these at some time said they oppose what the state has been.

For me, it would be more accurate to say that I oppose the Nineteenth Century nation-state, and it is my view that authorities should not necessarily abolish themselves but re-examine their declining legitimacy and govern based on human interests rather than bogus "national interests". Such national interests, I see as obsolete in the same way that monarchy became obsolete in Europe and the Americas. When I say antistatism, I mean anti-nation-statism (all modern states are nation-states, so state has become shorthand for nation-state in much academic discourse). Good governance is necessary, especially when it meets global, human interests. We shouldn't forget that global governance saved the ozone layer from depletion and is the only hope to save us from climate change, which makes it essential to human survival.

I believe there should be authorities, and that someone who calls for abolishing authority doesn't understand what authority is, because such a person would be actually relying on their own de facto authority (even if they lack a de jure position or rank) in order to make that call and expect anyone to listen. As such, I don't think anarchists are capable of plunging humanity into chaos even if they possessed vast wealth and power, because they would welcome forms of welfare and global governance, or even futuristic alternative models of "state" as beneficial alternatives, and the things they attack and criticize are usually only things like police brutality, monarchy, the church, and laws that aren't in the public interest. Anarchists remain a significant pressure group and intellectual school in Europe and America and we should see them mainly as a pressure group, like animal rights activists and others. I support animal rights, but that has no effect on my diet. Agreeing with some of a pressure group's current pressure against an institution shouldn't mean we belong to their group or ideology. I also agree with certain drug legalization, but I don't use drugs or see that anyone else should. Although I used to ignore anarchism and saw it as irrelevant, C4SS is an anarchist think tank I sometimes reprint, and has a lot of good theses I agree with.

By Harry J. Bentham - More articles by Harry J. Bentham

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

30 December 2014

The State Needs Crime

. @kevincarson1. #police. #policeviolence. #diein.


In Saturday Night Live‘s parody of Citizen Kane, on a slow news day Charles Foster Kane says, “if there’s not any news, we’ll make some,” and begins randomly shooting people out the newspaper office window. That’s the first thing I thought of on reading reports that two plainclothes California Highway Patrol cops found themselves outed — in the process of attempting to instigate looting by protesters! — during a march through Oakland and Berkeley against two recent grand jury decisions not to indict cops who had killed unarmed black men.

That’s right, attempting to instigate looting — you didn’t misread. According to eyewitnesses livetweeting from the demonstration, the two officers — posing as demonstrators — were would-be “instigators of looting” (Courtney Harrop, “Undercover Cops Outed and Pulled Guns on Crowd,” Storify, December 11, 2013). Protesters in the group they were attempting to infiltrate spotted them as fakes and outed them to the rest of the crowd. One of the panicked cops, captured in a photograph that immediately went viral, pulled his gun and began threatening the surrounding marchers.

Police provocateurs as instigators of crime is an old narrative. As Earth First! organizer Judi Bari famously said, “the person that offers to get the dynamite is always the FBI agent.” From the December 1999 Seattle protests on, the anti-globalization movement was rife with rumors of undercover cops always being the first to suggest smashing store windows. Nearly every “terror cell” busted by the FBI since 9/11 turned out to have been organized every step of the way by federal agents. Indeed the “terrorists” were usually so incompetent they could barely function even with FBI guidance.

Just as Charles Foster Kane manufactured news where there was none, the state manufactures crime where none would otherwise exist.

It does this, in the first instance, to create a pretext for using violence to suppress its immediate critics — the protesters against corporate globalization, the Occupiers, marchers outraged by racial injustice. The state always attempts to tarnish any movement circulating the message that “Another World is Possible” or casting doubt on the legitimacy of the existing system of power. It has done this by dismissing them as “reds,” “anarchists” and “outside agitators” — as in the post-Haymarket repression and the post-WWI Red Scare — and if necessary by simply fabricating crime.

But beyond that, the state needs us afraid so we’ll be willing to grant it power. A society made up of people who trust rather than fear each other, confident in their own ability to keep themselves safe through peaceful cooperation with their neighbors, is an inhospitable breeding ground for state power. The state needs crime — even if it has to invent it.

Translations for this article:



Citations to this article:


Kevin Carson, The State Needs Crime, Before It’s News, 12/13/14



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

26 December 2014

The Image of Revolution

. #ICantBreathe. #AmericanSpring. #downfalloftheregime. #Ferguson. #DieIn.


We are fascinated by the image of rebellion. The present generation came of age amidst global unrest and upheaval, from the Arab Spring to the anti-austerity movements in the West. Its immediate impulse has been to identify with those in the streets, even in the case of ill-fated and dubiously progressive movements. The image of defiance fulfills a deep seated need in those of us who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the status quo — it offers the illusory promise of hope. But the events of the past few years have demonstrated a complete lack of coherent thought on the nature and aims of revolution. Victories have thus been squandered where they were earned, and revolutionary momentum has stalled. Defiance is not enough.

The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 exemplified this problem. Protestors demanding “bread, freedom, social justice,” and the collapse of the regime massed across the nation. At the height of the Tahrir Square protests, millions surged into the streets. The inevitable crackdown was defeated, and the army stepped in to remove Mubarak from power. At this point, we were told, the revolution was essentially complete. This optimism, however, was misplaced. The interim military government appointed its own commission to review and amend the constitution, changing little. Egyptians were exhorted to elect a new parliament and a new president, in essence, to rebuild the state with fresh faces. The resulting Muslim Brotherhood government failed to deliver any substantial progress, and a military coup swiftly brought its rule to an end. Egypt is once again subject to a dictatorship.

Few in the present generation would have predicted the tragic demise of the revolution in 2011. Most were seduced by an image of revolution embodied by the pageantry of protest — the occupation of public spaces, chanting, fireworks — but devoid of real content. We were made to believe that the demise of a dictator — a single man — could pave the way for popular democracy. We believed that simply electing a new government could deliver legitimate change. It was no obstacle that this model provided precious few opportunities for those in the street to participate in politics, nor was it an issue that it implied a swift and relatively painless end to revolutionary struggle.

Rebellion itself became a spectacle. It was cynically marketed by media outlets and states to suit the needs of realpolitik. It was no accident that many of the channels aggressively promoting these revolutions were state owned. Al Jazeera, owned by the Qatari royal family, took the lead during the Arab Spring. Its programming is so entwined with Qatar’s political fortunes that Qatar has used its media coverage as a bargaining chip in international negotiations. Russia Today, which is owned by the Russian state, zealously broadcasts footage of unrest across the rest of the world, Russia, of course, omitted. For their part, Western news channels conveniently neutralized the message of the world’s revolutionaries, implying that their struggles were being waged in the name of some version of the Western political order.

At its very worst, the spectacle of revolution deceived some onlookers into supporting outright reactionary causes. In Ukraine, where local anarchists warned of the opposition’s dangers from the very beginning, foreign observers found themselves promoting an “uprising” whose foot soldiers were ultra-nationalists and fascists. Many still support a “revolution” in Syria whose most potent elements are authoritarian reactionaries funded by foreign governments. This historically blind perspective ignores the nature of fascist and reactionary movements, which have been accurately described as a “revolution from the right.” Opposition to the status quo does not imply liberatory aims. It should come as little surprise that both “populist” uprisings have delivered so little to their respective people. By ignoring the actual content of revolution, we condemn ourselves and our allies to inevitable failure.

Substituting one president or parliament for another is not a revolution. A revolution is a struggle against the injustice in society as a whole. This struggle cannot occur without a fundamental confrontation with the state. In Egypt, bread, freedom, and social justice could not possibly have been delivered by the election of a new government. The deep structures of the state — the security services, military, bureaucracy, and their associated corporate interests — remained almost entirely intact. As such, it was easy enough for a new pretender to assume the mantle of the old dictatorship. In Ukraine, the opposition made it clear from the very beginning that it was merely seeking to get a hold of state power. It is no accident that Ukraine is still in the grips of a corrupt oligarchy.

The revolutions of our era consistently lack the final push necessary to win popular freedom: dismantling the state. Powerful constituencies, from the military to institutional political parties, will always seek to divert the focus of unrest to manageable institutional channels like parliamentary elections. As we witnessed in Egypt and Ukraine, genuine revolutionary forces can be co-opted into party politics or simply ignored. This process is even underway in Ferguson, where local politicians seek to transform popular outrage into support for a particular party at the ballot box. This urge on the part of the powerful represents nothing more than a desire to protect the deep institutions of the state from popular outrage. One can vote new managers of the state into office, but one cannot simply vote the state out of existence.

If state power is the foundation of oppression, war, and the monopolization of property, then a genuine revolution must dismantle state power. There can be no half-measures or gradual steps in this regard. There are thus only a few simple questions that the observer may ask of any revolution: Does it struggle for the freedom, equality, and dignity of the people? Does it oppose institutionalized hierarchy and authority wherever it may be found? Does it seek to shatter the state? If a movement cannot answer any of these questions positively, then it deserves neither our support nor our sympathy. To the contrary, if it can, it deserves nothing less than the ardent support and aid of all those who struggle together in the name of freedom.

Where a revolution is made that a new government or party can come to power, its promise is betrayed. And where a revolution shakes the foundations of society and the state, its promise has only just begun to be fulfilled. For a revolution is nothing more than the decision of the people to take power once more into their own hands, freed of the domination of the powerful and the privileged. Without a fundamental change in the political and economic structure of society, “revolution” is merely an image to distract us from the magnitude of the task at hand. Let us cast aside our illusions — the real revolutions are yet to be won.



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

19 December 2014

Belem: Siege, Drug War & Police State

. #Belem. #drugwar. #Brazil. #policestate.


The night of November 4th in Belem, capital of Brazil’s Para state, was terrorizing. After the death of Corporal Figueiredo, from the Tactical Ops (Rotam) of the Military Police of the State of Para, at 7:30 PM, there was a violent retaliation, killing nine people, according to the official numbers, six of whom were undoubtedly executed. The victims appeared concurrent to the Rotam operation intended to arrest those responsible for the death of Corporal Figueiredo. Despite the official number of deaths, most people believe many more were killed during the night.

Rumors, audios, and videos were widely shared though WhatsApp and Facebook while the executions happened, showing what was happening on the outskirts of Belem. There was an unofficial curfew in several places on the periphery, given the expectation that there would be a violent retaliation to the death of the policeman and that the death squads that was wreaking havoc (presumably made up of military policemen) did not intend to take any prisoners. This group supposedly was covered by the official Rotam operation and they intended to kill any suspects.

It is important to highlight here that the deaths did not occur due to gunfights or resisting arrest. They were outright murders. The state government itself recognizes in an official statement that they were homicides, even though it does not conclude that the Military Police took part in them. Luiz Fernandes, Secretary of Public Security of Para, also admits that investigators are working on the hypothesis that death squads were acting there.

However, the sequence of events cannot be understood unless we comprehend their context: The local drug war dynamics.

In Belem, 66% of the population live in irregular buildings, favelas (slums) or the like, which, first, sprouted up near the center of the city (such as neighborhoods Guama, Jurunas, and Terra Firme — the last one being the stage of the murders) and, more recently, in the suburbs. They are very dense areas, with very little space between houses, allowing for the settlement of a large number of migrants from the state’s countryside and from the neighboring state Maranhao.

These areas, however, not unlike many others in Brazil, are marked by precarious access to basic utilities, like sewage disposal, and poor protection of the dwellers’ property rights (despite expropriations and evictions being uncommon in Belem). Moreover, as a result of drug prohibition, they end up under the rule of violent dealers.

Some time ago, it became known that the drug warlords were financing the militias. According to a report from the beginning of the year about the actions of militias in Guama and Terra Firme, these groups were formed by criminals and policemen (generally who are no longer formally affiliated with the Police) for the protection of drug dealers against other dealers and the police. They also regularly extort the local population. According to a Terra Firme dweller, who was quoted on the above report:
They ask people for money and kill whoever gets in their way. It is criminals killing criminals, but there are several honest citizens who are victims as well. When they are bothered by someone, they create a situation for a crime to happen.
The group which acts in the Guama neighborhood, made up mainly by retired police officers, is supposedly involved in the murder of young people, those “who walk around the streets at the wrong time, thieves and drug users,” as a local put it. Out of fear, silence prevails.

The story also tells that the police usually work on the hypothesis that these are hired gunmen, who are paid to enforce debts or murder the borrowers, denying the existence of militias and death squads that are financed by stolen money from the local populations. The events of the 4th seem to have changed that perception, since the government itself has admitted that death squads have been involved.

The general fear after the death of Corporal Figueiredo illustrates how real police, militia, and drug violence is in these areas. This fear has, for the first time, reached the richer areas of Belem, areas unfamiliar with the day to day uneasiness that the poor suffer through. Like never before, the night of November 4th made people, from very different social backgrounds, share the same fear.

Therefore, the murders were not a simple “isolated case,” but a perennial reality for the poor people of Belem, many of whom know or are related to someone who was murdered, were evicted from their homes by drug dealers, or just generally avoid staying out late (always!), afraid of what might happen to them.

These people, who suffer in every imaginable way, are denied the most basic and elementary way to reduce violent crime in Brazil: the end of the war on drugs. There is no reason, at all, that Brazilian cities should top the rankings for “most murders” in the world besides the failure of prohibition. Many cities are even more dangerous than Belem, but the causes of violence are similar. Most murders in Belem and elsewhere are related to drug feuds.

One of the main libertarian causes is the end of this abhorrent policy that takes away individual rights, puts behind bars many thousands of peaceful people and kills more than any substance addiction.

People who live in poor areas (and in other places, naturally) are sold the idea that only more repression will be able to solve the problem of public security. The drug user is the scapegoat and their frequent summary executions by the police are often welcomed.

Due legal process seems to be a burden to the police in Brazil, and its very existence seems to provide them with an even broader license to kill. We lose sight of the deep connections between the police, drug dealers and militias. The poor are the ones most exposed to the resulting police state, and the naive faith in the police as a guardian of order can only worsen their condition.

Belem shows vividly the monstrosity that the war on drugs is and its consequences to the urban dynamics in poor areas, marked by violence everywhere.

The main cause of all these deaths is not the lack of police repression or more executions, but the state itself and its criminalizing impetus, that enriches warlords and makes peripheral communities ever more vulnerable.

Translated by Erick Vasconcelos.

Citations to this article:





Image via anarchistart.com.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Trial By Jury: In Praise of the Lone Holdout

On September 4, Judge William Sullivan, of Massachusetts’s Plymouth County Superior Court, declared a mistrial in the case of Commonwealth v...

Follow Me on Twitter