Wednesday, June 8, 2011

President Humiliated by Netanyahu; AFP Corrects Bibi’s Biggest Whoppers

June 8th is the anniversary of Israels cowardly terrorist attack on the USS Liberty!!  Remember the Liberty!!!

By Ralph Forbes

American Free Press # 23, June 6, 2011

The president of the United States was recently humiliated in the White House—a symbol of American sovereignty—by Israel’s prime minister for 10 minutes on national and international TV. Benjamin Netanyahu chewed Obama out in the Oval Office, while “the most powerful man on Earth” cowered and dared not defend the honor and dignity of his office.

Obama, it seemed, could barely hold back the tears while the foreign leader who many define as a global bully lectured Obama about “the facts on the ground.”

But if Obama had the courage of any soldier who risks his or her life daily in “AfPak” and Iraq, he would have told Netanyahu to stop insulting the American people.

Obama should have used that 10 minutes—while the world watched—to prove that each of Netanyahu’s “facts” is a big fat lie.

Big Lie No. 1: “Israel can’t go back to 1967 borders.” Peace Envoy George Mitchell once resigned in disgust over the final straw of Netanyahu’s reneging of 1967 borders, when his predecessors—including prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert—proposed and committed to the 1967 borders “as the basis of peace negotiations.”

Big Lie No. 2: “Conditions on the ground have changed.” Imagine if hordes of illegal aliens from all over the world crossed over our borders, murdered Americans who had developed the land for generations, bulldozed or dynamited the homes of Americans, stole their lands, illegally occupied their properties and forced the homeless Americans to pass through checkpoints in order to travel within America. Imagine such a brutal police state denying you all the rights you once took for granted, refusing you all respect and dignity due you as a human being, much less mercy, in what was once your homeland.

In 1948 there were “officially” only 2,810 Jews who were illegal aliens in Palestine. After half of the land was partitioned, illegal immigrants, in what was left of Palestine, were practically zero. After the 1967 war the takeover of the remaining Palestinian lands began slowly. By 1972 there were 10,608 illegal aliens. They increased 10-fold by 1983 to 106,595; by 1993 they doubled to 281,800. They doubled again by 2004 to 441,165. In three years they increased to 484,862 by 2007. In less than two years, 2009, the flood rose to 516,569 gun-toting illegal aliens. Yes, conditions on the ground have changed—and they must not remain that way.

Big Lie No. 3: “The Palestinians deserve whatever they get. They started the war in 1967.” The Palestinians were victims of that war—refugees driven out of their homes, with more than 300,000 exiled who never returned. Houses were destroyed, “not in battle, but as punishment . . . in order to chase away the inhabitants. . . .” wrote Gen. Moshe Dayan in his memoirs. Many were forced out by the Israeli troops in panic and fear. There is evidence of Israeli soldiers going around with loudspeakers ordering West Bankers to leave their homes and cross the Jordan River.

The media constantly regurgitate the Big Lie that “Arabs attacked Israel,” but Israel’s leaders admit they started the war in 1967—and they are proud of it. At dawn, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack against the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Their air defenses lay in smoking ruins, never getting off the ground. By noon, Israel had essentially won the -Six Day War—in six hours. Inevitably, the fact that so many hundreds of Arab planes were trapped in their parking areas was evidence that Israel struck the first blow.

Menachem Begin admitted: “In June 1967, we had a choice. . . . We decided to attack,” as recorded by author Noam Chomsky in The Fateful Triangle.

“There was ‘no threat of destruction [of Israel]’,” the Israel’s ex-defense minister, Moshe Dayan, who gave the order to attack Syria to seize the Golan Heights, boasted that many of the fire-fights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the “greedy” kibbutz residents were less concerned for security than with grabbing the land (The New York Times, May 11, 1997).

Big Lie No. 4: “It was only a miracle that gave us a marvelous victory.” That is baloney. Actually, the war was premeditated, for at least two years, with precise plans between the Israeli high command and the 303 Committee, directly out of LBJ’s White House, under Operation Frontlet 615, involving a “live-bait,” “false-flag” plot to sink an American ship—with the death of all hands on board—blaming this shameful war crime on the Egyptians.

“Every person in that room knew . . . that it was an American ship and that it was the USS Liberty. . . . But General Dayan ordered the attack anyway. We Israelis were guilty of an outrage.” (Maj. Seth Mintz, AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Aug. 4, 2003)

The real blessing from God, the miracle of the Six Day War, was that the USS Liberty did not sink in spite of being hit with Israeli rockets, napalm and torpedoes— and gunboats machine-gunning life rafts—aided by treachery in the highest places.

That is only a summary of some of the Big Lies. Instead of demanding an apology, Obama groveled. Given Obama’s cowardice and that of Congress to face the truth and right the many wrongs, we all need to proclaim, “Remember the Liberty!”

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

WACNJ Screening of Occupation 101:Voice of the Silenced Majority


Tuesday, May 31 ·

7:30pm @

Action 21 ,107 Hutton Street


Jersey City, NJ


To commemorate the horrible MAVI MARMARA incident that occurred where 9 activists were killed by Israeli soldiers during a “boarding” of ships that brought aid such as food and supplies to Palestinian people, we have put together a showing of one of the most powerful documentaries concerning the Israel/Palestine situation that has been going on for many, many years.
We must become aware of how horrible the living conditions are for the Palestinian people and also how it is to live a life in a warzone/reservation.

WeAreChangeNewJersey
, Jersey City Peace Movement,TruthMedia.Info, Action 21 with the hand of  WACNYC and NATA-NY  bring you Occupation 101: Voice of the Silenced Majority is an award-winning 2006 documentary film on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directed by Sufyan Omeish and Abdallah Omeish, and narrated by Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew. The film focuses on the effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and discusses events from the rise of Zionism to the Second Intifada and Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan, presenting its perspective through dozens of interviews, questioning the nature of Israeli-American relations — in particular, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the ethics of US monetary involvement. [1] Occupation 101 includes interviews with mostly American and Israeli scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives — more than half of whom are Jewish — who are critical of the injustices and human rights abuses stemming from Israeli policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

A suggested donation of $5 will be greatly appreciated.

Please spread the info!!

AN INJUSTICE SOMEWHERE IS AN INJUSTICE EVERYWHERE

Stay Informed

AIPAC meeting in NYC and Washington D.C.



2011 AIPAC Wall Street Dinner in New York City, New York

AIPAC is proud to honor Daniel Nir at our 2011 Wall Street Dinner.  Mr. Nir is a founding Partner of Gracie Credit, a hedge fund based in New York City, that focuses on the credit markets.  From 1985-1997 Mr. Nir was a Partner at Gotham Capital.  He graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics from the Wharton School in 1982.  Mr. Nir’s philanthropic activities include being the president of the Ira Sohn Conference Foundation, assisting children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases, and he is the Chairman of the Board of the Upper West Success Academy, a charter school located in Manhattan.

Featured Speaker: Former U.S. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana

Event Date: 5/3/2011, 6:00 PM Eastern Time

Event Location: New York, NY

Contact Info: Joseph S. Richards, Wall Street Area Director
jrichards@aipac.org
212.750.4110

AIPAC Policy Conference 2011 Schedule & Speakers  

Delegates at AIPAC Policy Conference 2011 will hear from American and Israeli political leaders about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Below are some of the keynote speakers that will address this year’s Policy Conference May 22-24th @ the Walter E. Washington convention center.

Confirmed Speakers Include:

The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister, State of Israel

The Honorable John Boehner (R-OH)
Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Harry Reid (D-NV)
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate

The Honorable Robert Casey (D-PA)
U.S. Senate

The Honorable John Thune (R-SD)
U.S. Senate

The Honorable Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

The Honorable Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Democratic Whip, U.S. House of Representatives

Mr. Jim Woolsey
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency

The Honorable Martin Indyk
Vice President for Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel

Mr. Dan Senor
Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Mr. Paul Begala
Democratic Political Analyst and CNN Contributor

Mr. Ralph Reed
President, Century Strategies

Monday, April 4, 2011

Trilateral Commission meeting in D.C. April 8-10th

As reported by American Free Press, the Trilateral Commission will be meeting this April 8-10 in Washington D.C. This quasi secret conference is just as or more important than the G20 or WTO meetings. WeAreChangeNYC  & NATA-NY is calling for a coalition of truth seekers, to come to D.C. this April to show your displeasure with the fact that this internationalist plutocratic cabal will be meeting on American soil.
 Trilateral Commission – 1156 fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC

Thursday, March 24, 2011

BILDERBERG TO MEET IN SWITZERLAND



 

AFP’S  JIM TUCKER MAKING PLANS TO BE IN ST. MORITZ FROM  JUNE 9-12

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The shadowy group known as Bilderberg will be gathering this year for its annual meeting at the resort city of St. Moritz, in southeastern Switzerland, June 9-12, but they will have a lot of company. St. Moritz is a short distance from Davos, the site of the regular high-priced meeting of thousands of bankers, political leaders and other notables called the World Economic Forum. But unlike at Davos, where the press is always welcome, Bilderberg still tries to maintain absolute secrecy.

Bilderberg has met in Switzerland four times over the years but never in the same city. Normally, when their sibling in crime, the Trilateral Commission (TC), meets in North America, Bilderberg does, too. This year, the TC will meet in Washington on April 8 to 10, but the Bilderbergers are avoiding the United States, in what may be an effort to fool the press.

Bilderberg has been called the most exclusive and secretive club in the world. To be admitted, you have to own a multinational bank, a multinational corporation or a country. Since its first meeting in 1953, it has been attended by the top powerbrokers, financial minds and world leaders.

The Bilderbergers hope that part of their common agenda with the “Trilateralists” will be accomplished by the time they meet: a U.S. invasion of Libya to generate increased Middle East turmoil so America can go to war with Iran, on Israel’s behalf.  

As has happened for several years, the Bilderbergers will blubber about how “ evil nationalists” are blocking their efforts to achieve world government. They will order oil prices to climb so desperate Americans might be made more willing to surrender sovereignty to a world government. They will promote wars for profit, and will advance the call for a world government to impose peace—as if peace can be imposed.

It is ironic that Bilderberg attendees love Switzerland so much because they are poles apart politically from Switzerland, which declared itself a non-interventionist neutral country four centuries ago. It has been involved in none of the world’s bloody wars since.

The Bilderbergers can expect to be loudly greeted by AFP, European news outlets and some in the U.S. independent media. In Europe, major metropolitan daily newspapers from Paris, London and other cities give major coverage to Bilderberg. But The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times and their numerous chains will submit to muzzling because their top representatives are actual Bilderberg participants themselves.

AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.

Monday, March 21, 2011

NATA-NY & WACNYC screening of The Unfractured Future and Gasland



WeAreChange NYC & NATA-NY will be screening the films Gasland and The Unfractured Future, on Saturday the 26th of March @ 56 Walker st NYC (two blocks south of Canal st between Church st and Broadway), to raise awarness about Hydro-fracking a REAL threat to our environment. The proceeds to this event will go WACNYC to fund our trip to the Trilateral Comission meeting in Washington D.C. April, 8th-10th.

Doors open @ 7pm, film starts at 730pm. $10 suggested donation, no one will be turned away!!

Tracy Basile and Scott Halfmann (WeAreChange Westchester), produced a 12-minute documentary: The Unfractured Future about hydro-fracking in New York State in which Native American voices are brought to the forefront of this urgent issue.

“The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history has swept across the United States. The Halliburton-developed drilling technology of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing has unlocked a “Saudia Arabia of natural gas” just beneath us. But is fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby Pennsylvania town reports that residents are able to light their drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND. Part verite travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, part showdown.”

The films will be followed by a short talk and Q&A with Scott Halfmann (Unfractured Future’s film maker) ending with a round table disscusion on the subject of Hydro fracking.

To find out more about hydraulic fracturing please visit:http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/ and sign the petitions

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Manifesto of the Black Thorn League by Hakim Bey


  1. According to orally-transmitted teachings of Noble Drew Ali, founder & Prophet of the Moorish Science Temple of America: -- Ireland was once part of the Moorish Empire; that is, the celts were Moslems, & there were black moors from N. Africa also present in Ireland. But the moors were expelled by militant Christianity -- this event is disguised in the legend of St. Patrick's expelling the snakes - for which reason the MST celebrates St. Patrick's Day, in a mood of irony perhaps, in expectation of an eventual Return.

  2. In Noble Drew Ali's system, celts are considered an "Asiatic race", & thus potential converts to Moorish Science. We consider NDA's theories to be racial but not racist, because (again according to oral tradition) they were based (at least in part) on spiritual affinity. "Europeans" who wished to Join the MST (including some of the later founders of the Moorish Orthodox Church) were declared to be really celts or "Persians" -- (which may have something to do with the oft-remarked similarity of Eiran and Iran).

  3. NDA's hidden history of Ireland may be taken as an esoteric metaphor -but it is supported in some surprising ways by archaeology & even "official" history. In the first place, the celts are an Asiatic race, or at least the most recent arrivals in the west from the mysterious "Hyperborean" heartland of the Aryans -- last of those nomadic migrations which settled India, Persia & Greece.

  4. Second: What is one to make of those early Celtic crosses inscribed with the bismillah ("In the Name of God", opening words of the Koran) in kufic Arabic, found in Ireland? The Celtic Church, before its destruction by the Roman hierarchy, maintained a close connection with the desert hermit-monks of Egypt. Is it possible this connection persisted past the 7th/8th centuries, & that the role of the monks was taken up by Moslems? by Sufis? in contact with a still-surviving underground Celtic Church, now become completely heretical, & willing to syncretize Islamic esotericism with its own Nature-oriented & poetic Faith?

  5. Such a syncresis was certainly performed centuries later by the Templars & the Assassins (Nizari Ismailis). When the Temple was suppressed by Rome & its leaders burned at the stake, Ireland provided refuge for many incognito Templars. According to The Temple & The Lodge, these Templars later reorganized as a rogue Irish branch of Freemasonry, which (in the early 18th century) would resist amalgamation with the London Grand Lodge. The Islamic connection with masonry is quite clear, both in the Templar & the Rosicrucian traditions, but Irish masonry may have inherited an even earlier Islamic link -- memorialized in those enigmatic crosses!

  6. It's interesting to note that Noble Drew Ali's Masonic initiations may not have been limited to Prince Hall or black Shriner transmissions, but may also have included some hidden lines connected to Irish masonry, & dating back to Revolutionary days in American history. It is known that many common soldiers in the British Colonial Army were masons affiliated with the Irish rather than the London Grand Lodge. This "class" difference -was reflected in the American Revolutionary Army, whose officers were "official" masons but whose private ranks tended to be "Irish".

  7. Historians sometimes forget that in the 18th century, in America, the Irish were generally considered "no better than Negroes". In 1741 on St. Patrick's Day in New York a riot broke out, involving a conspiracy which included Irish, African, & Native American men & women -- naturally "of the meanest sort." Some Irish conspirators were overheard to swear they'd kill as many "white people" as possible. The uprising failed & the plotters were executed. As the bodies of two hanged in the open air decayed in an Iron gibbet, "observers noticed a gruesome, yet instructive, transformation. The corpse of an Irishman turned black & his hair curly while the corpse of Caesar the African, bleached white. It was accounted a 'wondrous phenomenon'" (Linebaugh & Rediker, "The Many-Headed Hydra").

  8. Clearly the Celt & African were linked not only in the gaze of the oppressor class, but also in their own world-view -- as comrades, as somehow the same -- in a solidarity which extended to Indians & to other "Europeans" who fell beneath the level of the "respectable poor" into the category of slaves & outcasts. Racist feelings did not divide the 18th century poor & marginalized -- as would become the case under later Capitalism. Rather the marginalized of all races constituted an underclass & moreover, an underclass with some awareness of itself, hence with a certain power (the power of the "strong victim"). This consciousness might well have been developed in part by Irish-black "masonry" of some sort. And Noble Drew Ali might have known of this tradition, which he masked (or perhaps unveiled) in his parable of the snakes - & celebration of March 17th.

  9. In another interpretation of St. Patrick's anti-reptilism, the "snakes" he banished were in fact "druids", i.e. Celtic pagans. The snake may have been an emblem of the Old Faith, as it is for many forms of paganism, including African (Damballah) & Indian (the Nagas) -- & even for the Ophite Christianity of Egypt (Christ himself depicted as a crucified snake).

  10. Celtic pagan lore was embedded in the Romance traditions especially in the Arthurian material -- & here once again. we find ourselves in the world of the Arabo-Celtic crosses. For the romances are permeated with "Islamic" consciousness. In Malory's Morte dArthur & Eschenbach's Parzifal many Saracen (i.e. Moslem/Moorish) knights are depicted not as enemies but allies of the Celts -- & in the latter book the entire story is attributed to Moorish sources (which are now lost). Saracens, Christians, & crypto-pagans are united in a mystical cult of chivalry which transcends outward religious forms, & is emblematized not only in pagan symbols like the Grail & the Questing Beast, but even in such cultural borrowings as the lute (al-'ud in Arabic), or indeed the cult of romantic/chivalric love, transmitted from Islam to the west by Sufis in Spain.

  11. Ireland's contacts with Spain certainly extend back into the Islamic period, & the so-called "Black Irish" may have as many Moorish as castillian genes. Medieval Irish monks probably absorbed Sufism & Islamic philosophy along with the art of the illuminated manuscript -- witness the extraordinary stylistic resonance between the Book of Eells & the Kufic Korans of Omayyad Spain. If St. Francis could visit N. Africa & come back to Italy wearing a Sufi's patched cloak, so the Irish might easily borrow from Egypt & al-Andalus.

  12. All speculation aside, the Moorish Orthodox Church entertains its own esoteric interpretation of NDA's teachings on these matters. We heartily endorse his "elective affinity" theory of affiliation with a greater spiritual Celto-Asiatic "race". DNA counts for something, but soul for a great deal more. "Every man & woman their own vine & fig tree" (one of NDA's slogans) is not a matter of fate but of character, not of birth but of choice.

  13. In our historical/imaginative exegesis & unfolding of NDA's parable, we have uncovered a complex of heretical Islamic & Moorish cultural strands linking Celtic neo-paganism, esoteric Christianity, & the Arthurian cycle, thru Sufism & masonry, to the perennial libertarian struggle of the marginalized & oppressed peoples of the "Atlantic" world.

  14. We propose to embody this poetic complex in a popular chivalric order, devoted symbolically to the cause of "bringing the snakes back to Ireland" - that is, of uniting all these mystical strands into one patterned weave, which will restore the power of its synergistic or syncretistic power to the hearts of those who respond to the particular "taste" of its mix. We have borrowed this slogan from contemporary neo-pagans in order to symbolize the special mission our order will undertake toward Celtic-Moorish friendship. The BLACK THORN LEAGUE will be open to all, regardless of whether they are MOC members or not, providing only that they support this particular goal.

  15. "Black" in our title signifies not only the black banners of the moors but also the black flag of anarchy. "Blackthorn", because the tree symbolizes druid Irelands & is used to make cudgels. "League", in honor of the various Irish rebel groups which have organized as such. Other organizational models include such Masonic-revolutionary groups as the Carbonari, or Proudhon's anarchist "Holy Vehm", or Bakunin's Revolutionary Brotherhood. We also emulate certain anarcho-Taoist Chinese tongs (such as the Chaos Society)~~ & hope to evolve the kind of informal mutual aid webworks they developed.

  16. The League will bestow the Order of the Black Thorn as title & honor, & will hold an annual conclave & banquet on St. Patrick's Day in memory both of Noble Drew Ali's vision, & of those rioters of 1741 who conspired in low taverns to overthrow the State.


Bring The Snakes Back To Ireland!


via hermetic.com/bey

Activist Poetry Slam

Thursday, April 14 · 7:30pm - 10:30pm


Action 21
107 Hutton Street

Jersey City, NJ


Since its inception, the spoken word has been an outlet for people to release their views outside the academic and institutional domains of the university and academic or small press hegemony.
The spoken word, or slam poetry, evolved into the present day soap-box for people to express their views, emotions, life experiences or information.

The views of spoken word artists encompass religion, politics, sex and gender. When talking ...about emotion, it depends. A spoken word piece can be powerful with the right emotion behind it but, at the same time, a lack of emotion can set a poem apart. It all depends on the topic.

Life experiences are best, especially when the person has actually lived through the experience. Lastly, spoken word is used to inform or make people conscious of some aspect pertaining to life.

In cooperation with Jersey City Peace Movement, WeAreChangeNJ, Truth-Media.Info and Action 21, this is an event for people to meet up exchange thoughts and feelings and get informed about the current state of our government, economy, environment, world and our god given rights as a people.

There will be spoken word sessions by Activists and Poets alike as well as Artwork from the some of the top Artists in the area.

There will also be tables with free DVDs, pamphlets and info for anyone interested in learning more about some of the Truths left out of the media.

http://Truth-Media.Info/
http://www.JCPM.org/
http://www.WeAreChangeNewJersey.com/



Friday, March 11, 2011

NATA-NY screening of The Unfractured Future and Gasland

NATA-NY & WeAreChange NYC will be screening the films Gasland and The Unfractured Future, on Saturday the 26th of March @ 56 Walker st (two blocks south of Canal st between Church and Broadway), to raise awarness about Hydro-fracking a REAL threat to our environment. The proceeds to this event will go to continue to print flyers and new information boards for WACNYC.

Doors open @ 7pm, film starts at 730pm. $10 suggested donation, no one will be turned away!!

Tracy Basile and Scott Halfmann (WeAreChange Westchester), produced a 12-minute documentary: The Unfractured Future about hydro-fracking in New York State in which Native American voices are brought to the forefront of this urgent issue.

"The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history has swept across the United States. The Halliburton-developed drilling technology of "fracking" or hydraulic fracturing has unlocked a "Saudia Arabia of natural gas" just beneath us. But is fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby Pennsylvania town reports that residents are able to light their drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND. Part verite travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, part showdown."

The films will be followed by a short talk and Q&A with Scott Halfmann (Unfractured Future's film maker) ending with a round table disscusion on the subject of Hydro fracking.

To find out more about hydraulic fracturing please visit:http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/ and sign the petitions.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Corporate Control? Not in These Communities: Can local laws have a real effect on the power of giant corporations?

by Allen D. Kanner



Mt. Shasta, a small northern California town of 3,500 residents nestled in the foothills of magnificent Mount Shasta, is taking on corporate power through an unusual process—democracy.

The citizens of Mt. Shasta have developed an extraordinary ordinance, set to be voted on in the next special or general election, that would prohibit corporations such as Nestle and Coca-Cola from extracting water from the local aquifer. But this is only the beginning. The ordinance would also ban energy giant PG&E, and any other corporation, from regional cloud seeding, a process that disrupts weather patterns through the use of toxic chemicals such as silver iodide. More generally, it would refuse to recognize corporate personhood, explicitly place the rights of community and local government above the economic interests of multinational corporations, and recognize the rights of nature to exist, flourish, and evolve.

Mt. Shasta is not alone. Rather, it is part of a (so far) quiet municipal movement making its way across the United States in which communities are directly defying corporate rule and affirming the sovereignty of local government.

Since 1998, more than 125 municipalities have passed ordinances that explicitly put their citizens' rights ahead of corporate interests, despite the existence of state and federal laws to the contrary. These communities have banned corporations from dumping toxic sludge, building factory farms, mining, and extracting water for bottling. Many have explicitly refused to recognize corporate personhood. Over a dozen townships in Pennsylvania, Maine, and New Hampshire have recognized the right of nature to exist and flourish (as Ecuador just did in its new national constitution). Four municipalities, including Halifax in Virginia, and Mahoney, Shrewsbury, and Packer in Pennsylvania, have passed laws imposing penalties on corporations for chemical trespass, the involuntary introduction of toxic chemicals into the human body.

These communities are beginning to band together. When the attorney general of Pennsylvania threatened to sue Packer Township this year for banning sewage sludge within its boundaries, six other Pennsylvania towns adopted similar ordinances and twenty-three others passed resolutions in support of their neighboring community. Many people were outraged when the attorney general proclaimed, "there is no inalienable right to local self-government."

Bigger cities are joining the fray. In November, Pittsburgh's city council voted to ban corporations in the city from drilling for natural gas as a result of local concern about an environmentally devastating practice known as "fracking." As city councilman Doug Shields stated in a press release, "Many people think that this is only about gas drilling. It's not—it's about our authority as a municipal community to say 'no' to corporations that will cause damage to our community. It's about our right to community, [to] local self-government."

What has driven these communities to such radical action? The typical story involves a handful of local citizens deciding to oppose a corporate practice, such as toxic sludge dumping, which has taken a huge toll on the health, economy, and natural surroundings of their town. After years of fighting for regulatory change, these citizens discover a bitter truth: the U.S. environmental regulatory system consists of a set of interlocking state and federal laws designed by industry to serve corporate interests. With the deck utterly stacked against them, communities are powerless to prevent corporations from destroying the local environment for the sake of profit.

Enter the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit public interest law firm that champions a different approach. The firm helps communities draft local ordinances that place the rights of municipalities to govern themselves above corporate rights. Through its Democracy School, which offers seminars across the United States, it provides a detailed analysis of the history of corporate law and environmental regulation that shows a need for a complete overhaul of the system. Armed with this knowledge and with their well-crafted ordinances, citizens are able to return to their communities to begin organizing for the passage of laws such as Mt. Shasta's proposed ordinance.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is collaborating with Global Exchange, an international environmental and workers' rights organization, to help supporters of the Mt. Shasta ordinance organize. In an interview for this article, I asked Shannon Biggs, who directs Global Exchange's Community Rights Program, if she expected ordinances of this type to be upheld in court. Biggs was dubious about judges "seeing the error of their ways" and reversing a centuries-oldtrend in which courts grant corporations increased power. Rather, she sees these ordinances as powerful educational and organizing tools that can lead to the major changes necessary to reduce corporate power, put decision-making back in the hands of real people rather than corporate "persons," and open up whole new areas of rights, such as those of ecosystems and natural communities. Biggs connects the current municipal defiance of existing state and federal law to a long tradition of civil disobedience in the United States, harkening back to Susan B. Anthony illegally casting her ballot, the Underground Railroad flouting slave laws, and civil rights protesters purposely breaking segregation laws.

But the nascent municipal rights movement offers something new in the way of political action. These communities are adopting laws that, taken together, are forming an alternative structure to the global corporate economy. The principles behind these laws can be applied broadly to any area where corporate rights override local self-government or the well-being of the local ecology. The best place to start, I would suggest, is with banning corporations from making campaign contributions to local elections.

The municipal movement could provide one of the most effective routes to building nationwide support for an Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the movement is already expanding. In Pennsylvania, people are now organizing on the state level and similar stirrings have been reported in New Hampshire.

What about your community?


Allen D. Kanner, Ph.D., is a cofounder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, co-editor ofPsychology and Consumer Culture and Ecopsychology, and a Berkeley, California child, family, and adult psychologist.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Anarchism as Spiritual Practice

by Ric Hudgens 

via: Jesus Radicals

 February 13, 2011
Post image for Anarchism as Spiritual Practice

“Wake up to reality!”
(1 Corinthians 13:11, Phillips translation).

The fledgling democracy in Egypt may struggle to find its legs; nevertheless it is impossible for most of us to resist the joy and excitement of these events. It awakens us to how easily we succumb to the weight of “reality” where “a little sleep, a little slumber, a little closing of the hands to rest, and poverty (or tyranny) will come upon you like a bandit” (Proverbs 6:11). That “reality” that seems so fixed and unyielding in our lives may in fact be a fantasy, a projection of our own fears, our own inertia, our own lack of imagination. No matter that that “reality” is stealing our souls, deadening us to our own pain. More often than not, no theft is even necessary. We gladly sell our souls in exchange for the capitalist trinkets and electoral air-fresheners that keep us distracted from the crises and opportunities before us. Egypt woke up. Those protesting in Liberation Square during the past three weeks have shaken themselves and all of us awake again.

A struggle for power? Of course. But first of all a struggle against power: a struggle to shrug off the paternalistic grip of a dominant father, and an effort to affirm their own dignity and integrity as human beings. A political struggle? Of course. But first of all a moral struggle to affirm their agency as human beings imagining and working towards a future of their own choosing. A struggle of the spirit? I say yes. Clearly those Muslims praying in the Square saw no contradiction between their faith and their protest. Clearly those Christians who were protected by those Muslims as they prayed and worshipped saw no tension between their witness and their defiance. Even those Egyptians who prayed with neither group participated with both in occupying a public space that did not exclude any nonviolent participant who wanted to be there. It was a spiritual struggle in that it was a struggle motivated by an abiding human desire to not be dominated by political propaganda, government coercion, or institutionalized terror.

We Christian anarchists sometimes exude an unhealthy cynicism. As anarchists our cynicism is justified. But as Christians we are also creatures of hope. Living in the creative tension of those two equally legitimate dispositions shapes our political discipleship. Anarchism need not be seen as merely political. As practiced by Christians, anarchism can become an essential spiritual practice that not only directs our engagement with the world, but also powerfully forms and develops our own spiritual maturity. How is this so?

The practice of anarchism calls us to the critique of false absolutes. The first commandment is a fundamental Christian anarchist principle: no other gods. But of course other gods are always arising, always being promoted, always holding forth, always shanghaiing new slaves to injustice. We remain constantly aware that even our own Christian anarchist hearts are prone to the worship of false idols and the false worship of the one true God. Anarchism as spiritual practice keeps reminding us of our own potential for self-deception.

The practice of anarchism, more than any other political philosophy, forces us to take responsibility for our own actions. Moses declared “Choose you this day whom YOU will serve.” There is no getting around that necessity. The existential reality of choice is not reserved for a few twentieth-century French philosophers. “Repent” is a prerequisite for the “kingdom” that the Hebrew prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early church preached about. It is a recognition, an invitation, and a command to keep turning and moving into the right direction – moving into the freedom of God. Because self-deception is a constant trap repentance is a constant necessity. Indeed, repentance becomes the escape hatch to renewed freedom as we leave the seeming determinism of an ill-chosen present and move into the undetermined, still open, and therefore hope-filled future of God. Anarchism as spiritual practice keeps reminding us that there is always something we can do.

The practice of anarchism is a call into recognizable communities, where alliances and coalitions are formed around shared commitments, in-depth dialogue and conversation, and corporate decision-making that keeps our ambitions and projects small, real, and therefore more effective. Anarchism has no room for personal grandiosity or totalizing metanarratives. It is if anything a politics of finitude, but not therefore a politics without vision or even (dare we say it?) ambition. Because it is the most open-ended perspective on politics it is also the most open to hope. Anarchism as spiritual practice keeps reminding us that wherever two or three are gathered God is there as well. And wherever God is there is no telling what might happen!

I will admit that I carry very little expectation that Egypt will become the embodiment of anything that we as Christian anarchists would celebrate. My guess is that the majority of those in Tahrir Square are not only wanting a democratic government, but also a share of the materialistic excess they see elsewhere. Look at India sixty-five years after the Gandhian revolution and you see how little impact Gandhi’s agrarian, anarchist vision has had in the face of global capitalism’s relentless march. Those who question the lasting significance of such a “revolution” have a point.

My point is that that is not the only point. Something else seems to be starting in the Middle East and since I am both a creature of hope and a scavenger for hope I am picking up things that may eventually be cast aside.

We simply don’t know what is possible. It is far too easy for us to adopt an easy cynicism that disparages the longing of others, or absolves us from direct action. Far too easy. It is my prayer that what is taking place in Tunisia and Egypt (and soon perhaps in Algeria and Yemen) will be used by God to stir our hearts and minds and renew our spirits. As long as there is a God there is hope, and as long as there is hope there is something for us to do.

Poet David Whyte concludes his poem “Start Close In” with these words:
Start right now
take a small step
you can call your own
don’t follow
someone else’s
heroics, be humble
and focused,
start close in,
don’t mistake
that other
for your own.

Start close in,
don’t take the second step
or the third,
start with the first
thing
close in,
the step you don’t want to take.

Anarchism as spiritual practice calls us to see our political practice not only as the practice of our discipleship, but the avenue for God’s work in our souls. Start close in. Take a small step. Be humble and focused. Who knows what might happen?

Image by Hossam el-Hamalawy

Monday, February 7, 2011

SPLC Admits Defining ‘Hate’ Is Purely Subjective

The huxter Morris Dees and his sophists at the SPLC have not only attacked AFP and other patriot publications and groups such as WeAreChange and the John Birch Society etc. labeling them"Haters". They have also smeared the National Anarchist movement as being crypto fascists.

via: American Free Press

By Dave Gahary

In the last decade, AFP has frequently reported on well-funded U.S. and international organizations that are set up for the sole purpose of smearing decent patriotic Americans and others as “haters” and “racists,” simply because they do not agree with these groups’ liberal outlook. The danger here is that these so-called “civil right groups” often work closely with law enforcement agencies, using paid informants to infiltrate meetings and spy on people. Detailed information is collected and kept in files or turned over to police to help facilitate lawsuits and prosecutions— even prison sentences.

AFP had the chance recently to interview Mark Potok, the spokesperson for Morris Dees’s Southern Poverty Law Center, a multi-million-dollar operation that sees itself as America’s premier civil rights organization, but more broadly exists to pigeonhole Americans into subjective categories of “hate.”

Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “Intelligence Project,” tasked with monitoring “hate groups” and “extremists,” freely admitted to AFP that the method SPLC staffers use for determining “hate” is not at all a science.

When asked if there is a definition on the SPLC’s Internet site that explains the parameters or metrics used to determine “hate,” Potok had a short reply: “Not really.” Potok was then asked if this kind of approach to classify “hate” is subjective, and he replied in the affirmative. “Yes, there’s some art as well as some science in it.”

This admission from the editor of the quarterly magazine Intelligence Report, the “nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.,” could be seen as alarming. A subjective, therefore inaccurate “hate” judgment from Potok and company at the SPLC could ruin someone’s life or even become a jail sentence, especially since the magazine is sent free to law enforcement agencies.

According to what Potok told AFP, the SPLC “train[s] anywhere between 2,000 and 8,000 police officers a year . . . in everything from hate crimes training to, much more typically, training in hate groups and
domestic terrorism.”

Even more alarming, someone can be classified as “hateful” even if they’ve never committed any crimes nor seem poised to do so in the future, but simply for expressing their “politically incorrect” opinion.

“The listings are not based on criminality or violence or any kind of estimate we’re making as to the potential of violence or criminal actions . . . [but] based strictly on ideology,” continued Potok.

Amazingly, Potok explained why “hate” is not defined by the SPLC.

“Part of the reason we don’t publish a definition . . . this is our opinion, this is our evaluation based, we think, on objective factors,” said Potok. He says this, even after admitting that the process is clearly subjective.

The SPLC’s Internet site comes fully equipped with a “hate map” that displays a spiffy graphic of the United States and a drop-down menu that allows users to select a state and view corresponding lists of “hate groups.”

The SPLC supposedly isn’t in the business of infiltrating such groups but instead claims on its site: “The list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.”

Obviously, one of the dangers in this type of approach is interpreting the authenticity and content of the source material from the individuals and groups the SPLC decides to monitor, as well as the accuracy and dependability of eyewitnesses, police and “news” reports. The fact that “history” is littered with errors seems not to bother Potok.

It’s interesting to note that the SPLC’s unscientific, subjective virtual slandering applies to the publication you’re currently reading. 

AMERICAN FREE PRESS is listed on the “hate map” under the “not easily categorized” category of “General Hate,” which has an equally
ambiguous and unsettled definition:

These groups espouse a variety of rather unique hateful doctrines and beliefs that are not easily categorized. This list includes a “Jewish” group that is rabidly anti-Arab, a “Christian” group that is anti-Catholic and a polygamous “Mormon” breakaway sect that is racist. Many of the groups are vendors that sell a miscellany of hate materials from several different sectors of the white supremacist movement.

Potok and the SPLC need to take a lesson from themselves: “hate” is certainly subjective and “not easily categorized.”

Trilateral Commission meeting in D.C. this Spring

As reported by American Free Press, the Trilateral Commission will be meeting this April 8-10 in Washington D.C. This quasi secret conference is just as or more important than the G20 or WTO meetings. NATA-NY  is calling for a coalition of truth seekers, to come to D.C. this spring to show your displeasure with the fact that this internationalist plutocratic cabal will be meeting on American soil. It has not been disclosed where the Trilats will be meeting in D.C., so we will keep you posted to any further details.

Monday, January 31, 2011

NYC Film Screening: WeAreChangeNYC + NATA-NY present Enemy of The State: Camp FEMA Part 2

56 walker street 2 blocks south of Canal st, just west of Broadway

Saturday, February 19 · 7:30pm - 11:30pm

We Are Change NYC & NATA-NY will be hosting a screening of the sequel to Camp FEMA, Enemy of The State. On February 19th, following the screening Filmmaker Gary Franchi will be joining us Live via Skype Video Link to answer your questions!

Panics, orchestrated crises, media hype and propaganda have been used in the name of “protecting the people” for generations. CNN, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other media outlets air special reports and name call anyone who questions the government as conspiracy theorists in an effort to suppress information.

Yet, with the de-classification of decades-old documents, it can be found that many of these “conspiracy theories” are not so theoretical after all.
We'll visit a real-life FEMA camp that will send tingles up your treason-bones.

We'll examine an ex-police officer's training in a Department of Homeland Security decontamination program that promises round-ups, forced unclothing, detoxification, mandatory vaccines and further detention. From legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers to illegal military teams put together through FEMA, you're not going to believe the power given to "officials" to put this country under a state of martial law.

As heart-rates rise, Enemy of the State: Camp FEMA Part 2 takes a look at the government and media manipulation of an unwitting public, and plans that have been laid out through legislation, Executive Orders and Presidential Directives that pave the way for the elimination of many, if not all, of our most basic rights. Enemy of The State: Camp FEMA Part 2 thrashes out the mission of a police state and the implementation of martial law. Are you an Enemy of the State?

The film will begin @ 7:30pm @ 56 Walker street two blocks south of Canal st. just west of Broadway. $10 suggested donation, no one will be turned away. All the proceeds from this event will go to WeAreChangeNYC so we can continue to have events, print fliers etc.

There will be Information, Food, and Refreshments at this event! Bring your friends and family!

See the trailer here: http://campfema.com/

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Anarcho-Pluralism and Pan-Secessionism: What They Are and What They Are Not

Via: Attack the System

by Keith Preston

A close colleague recently put a question to me that I regard as important enough to be well worth discussing publicly. I was asked if whether or not my own assumption of controversial stances on a variety of issues might have the effect of weakening my wider advocacy of an “anarcho-pluralist” political framework and a “pan-secessionist” strategy for achieving it. For instance, by attacking political correctness, am I not alienating many people with PC views on many issues who might otherwise be sympathetic to my wider outlook? By challenging the “open borders” preferences of mainstream libertarians, am I not pushing away anti-statists and decentralists who might also hold pro-immigration views? Indeed, might not even illegal immigrants themselves be viable allies within a pan-secessionist or anarcho-pluralist meta-political framework given that, at least on some levels, they are in conflict with the existing state?

Clearly, a number of important distinctions need to be made regarding such questions. The most significant of these distinctions involves defining what “anarcho-pluralism” and “pan-secessionism” actually are. “Anarcho-pluralism,” as I conceive of it at least, is a brand of anti-state radicalism that has “anti-universalism” and what might be called “radical localism” as it core defining characteristics. It is “anti-universalist” because it rejects the view that there is one “correct” system of politics, economics, or culture that is applicable much less obligatory for all people at all times and in all places. As Russell Kirk observed: “There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government necessarily depends upon the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture, the ancient laws, and the material circumstances of a people.” Anarcho-pluralism advocates “radical localism” as the best possible method of avoiding the tyrannies and abuses of overarching Leviathan states, and accommodating the irreconcilable differences concerning any number of matters that all societies inevitably contain.

“Pan-secessionism” is the strategy for achieving anarcho-pluralism. Given that most modern societies are under the rule of overarching states possessing expansive bureaucratic tentacles and police powers, the simple territorial withdrawal of regions and localities and renunciation of the central state by the secessionists would seem to be the most practical and comprehensible method of resistance.  These few simple ideas are all that anarcho-pluralism and pan-secessionism really amount to. Theoretically, one could hold to just about any other set of beliefs or values and operate within the framework of anarcho-pluralism and pan-secessionism. In its essence, the anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist program does nothing more than work to abolish the central state and give every political interest group its own territory to create whatever kind of society it wishes, with ultimate success or failure being the sole responsibility of the local organizers, residents, or participants.

With regards to political correctness, it is certainly possible for persons holding stereotypical PC views to operate within a wider anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist framework or to join an alliance for the organization of such. For instance, the late, great, feminist-extremist Andrea Dworkin was actually a proponent of “lesbian separatism” and apparently favored the creation of communities for those with views like hers complete with “land and guns” of their own. Some in the left-wing anarchist milieu favor an idea called “libertarian municipalism,” a perspective advanced by the late anarchist-ecologist Murray Bookchin which basically involves creating independent city-state-like municipalities organized on the New England town meeting model, presumably espousing the usual communitarian-green-feminist-rainbow values of the far Left. It is theoretically possible that if and when the day comes that a pan-secessionist movement that is actually large enough and well-organized enough to mount a credible challenge to the authority of the U.S. regime and ruling class emerges, a majority or even a super-majority of the individuals, organizations, and communities participating in such an effort could potentially reflect the kinds of “far Left” values and positions on issues of the kinds that most current left-anarchists espouse.

A similar theoretical formulation could be applied to the immigration question.  It is entirely possible that many if not most participants in a pan-secessionist action could indeed be persons or groups favoring a completely “open borders” policy for their respective post-secession communities. Indeed, it is even possible that many participants in a pan-secessionist movement or action could be immigrants, even those who immigrated illegally according to present U.S. law, or the immediate descendants of such.

Yet a number of obvious and vital questions remain. The most immediate of these would be: what is the purpose of anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism in the first place, its core principles aside? Anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism is an outlook that myself and some colleagues developed in the late 1990s in response to certain problems that we perceived in the mainstream of the anarchist milieu. From my earliest involvement in the anarchist movement, I noticed that quite frequently anarchists seemed to be, among other things, much more interested in promoting the standard laundry list of liberal or left-wing causes, or simply engaging in countercultural lifestyle practices,  rather than advancing the struggle against the state. Opposition to the state itself is the core essence of any anarchist ideology worthy of the name. Anarchism differs from classical liberalism, which views the state as a neutral agent whose purpose is to uphold and protect abstract “rights.” The anarchist view regards the state as a self-interested entity claiming monopoly privilege for its members. Anarchism also differs from leftism in that it regards the state as a parasite and usurper rather than as a reflection of some mythical “general will” (the democratist view) or as an agent of class rule (the Marxist view).  The traditional anarchist critique of capitalism regards plutocracy as the result of state-imposed privilege for private interests allied with the state (see Proudhon), and the traditional anarchist opposition to war, militarism, and imperialism results from the anarchist view of these things as simple acts of aggression and plunder by states, no different in kind from ordinary criminality.

An additional factor that shaped my own view was the recognition that many thinkers and activists outside the anarchist milieu and, indeed, outside the subculture of the “far Left” where most anarchists tend to function, possess many cogent criticisms of the state, plutocracy, empire and imperialism that overlapped quite well with the traditional anarchist critique, including some from the “far Right.” While studying the works of leading commentators and theorists from these schools of thought more carefully, I came to the conclusion that a good number entirely valid and legitimate issues and questions were being raised by many in these camps. Initially, I began pushing for greater collaboration between anarchists and the libertarian-left and paleoconservatives, the militia-patriot-constitutionalist milieu, right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, the populist-right, and so forth. I then discovered the neo-secessionist tendencies that were starting to organize at the time, and around ten years ago I encountered for the first time the national-anarchist tendency that had recently emerged. This in turn introduced me to the world of “third-position” ideologies, to the French New Right of Alain De Benoist, and so forth. I began to understand that quite often the only key differences between many of these “right-wing” perspectives and traditional anarchism are matters of culture, and in some instances mere aesthetics or individual tastes.  I wrote a letter to a left-anarchist journal in 1999 where I outlined these views, and I later reworked the letter into an article expounding upon these ideas further.

Anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism was created as a tendency whose specific purpose was to re-orient the focus of modern anarchism away from liberal and leftist social causes and countercultural lifestyles, and towards a more concentrated attack on the state, the empire, and the plutocracy. A related purpose is to form tactical alliances towards this end with many others sharing overlapping critiques or concerns, including some from the “far Right” or other points on the political spectrum apart from the radical Left milieu. Additionally, strategic and organizational issues are to be placed at the forefront of our ongoing efforts and expressed concerns. In other words, anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism differs sharply from the mainstream anarchist movement  by

1) shifting focus away from left-wing social causes and countercultural lifestyles towards attacking the state, empire, and plutocracy as the primary values or objectives;

2) working for the construction of an anti-state, anti-plutocratic, and anti-imperialist political alliance comprised of opposition forces from across the political spectrum;

3) developing or promoting regional and local secessionist movements as the strategic and organizational vehicle for the political advancement of such a tactical alliance;

4) rejecting the universalistic claim that all participants in the anarcho-pluralistic/pan-secessionist project must hold to “ultra-liberal,” “far Left,” or countercultural lifestyle views on such matters as abortion, gay rights, feminism, transgendered rights, environmentalism, animal rights, “anti-racism,” “anti-fascism,” immigrants’ rights, “open borders,” veganism/vegetarianism, economic preferences, nuclear power, capital punishment, religion, drugs, family organization, squatting, dumpster-diving, punk rock music, and many other things. This is not to say that participants in such a project cannot hold “ultra-liberal” or countercultural views on such matters, but that such an outlook, while acceptable, is not mandatory.

5) recognizing that a post-state, post-plutocratic, and post-empire nation or civilization where anarchists are politically dominant would contain a genuine diversity of forms of political, cultural, and economic organization, and not just the kinds favored by the “far Left.” Consequently, a post-revolutionary political order would likely include communities and institutions of a conservative, religious, ethnocentric, traditionalist, patriarchal, or just plain old middle-of-the-road, moderate nature as well as those of a leftist or countercultural nature.

The Necessity of Confronting Totalitarian Humanism

Once upon a time, I generally agreed with the standard leftist view that much of the conservative critique of “political correctness” amounts to little more than sour grapes on the part of right-wingers who are on the losing end of history and political struggles. However, upon further experience and reflection, I found it necessary to alter my view. When I first began promoting the ideas outlined above in the anarchist milieu, I knew it would be controversial and that many would object. However, I was somewhat surprised by the level of vociferous hostility and threats of violence I received from the critics. Now, on one hand, if some anarchists regard immigrants’ rights, gay rights, transexual rights, animal rights, or the most extreme forms of “anti-racism” to be the most important issues, then they are still perfectly within their rights to feel this way. If they prefer to tolerate or endure the present system rather than cede any ground, politically or geographically, to the Right, or to have any sort of association with cultural conservatives, then they likewise have the right to make this value judgment for themselves. However, the fact that they cannot accept that some of us would choose a different way, and that they cannot co-exist with our own tendency without making threats of violence and assuming a generally obscurantist attitude, indicates that their commitment to such core libertarian values as freedom of speech and thought is rather limited. This essentially cancels their supposed “progressive” credentials and essentially renders them to the status of either a pre-Enlightenment cult movement, or secular theocrats,  or a variation of the modern totalitarian movements that have emerged since the French Revolution. As a biographer of the anarchist historian Paul Avrich observed: “Avrich does not shy away from controversy in his books, treating the anarchist acts of violence honestly and in the context of the time. He does not condone the violence of Berkman, but says he still admires his decision, considering how brutal Frick acted toward striking workers. But Avrich does not have the same patience for some contemporary anarchists, who choose to destroy property and who, he says, come mainly from educated and middle-class backgrounds. “I’m not so crazy about anarchists these days,” he says. Anarchism means that you leave other people alone and you don’t force people to do anything.” He says he is sad that the old-timers are not around to guide the resurgent movement. “They were nicer people –much nicer people.” Of course, the anarcho-leftoids, antifa, and other related groups are merely a symptom of the growing totalitarian movement of which Political Correctness is a manifestation. I have written about this third totalitarianism before, and will continue to do so in the future. For now, it is simply enough to say that Political Correctness must be confronted by serious anarchists in the same way that it was necessary for perceptive anarchists to confront Communism as Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin did in the days when it was the emerging totalitarian movement of the 19th century. This is simply a matter of self-defense, as the left-wing enemy has declared war on us. Given the rabid hatred expressed by PC Left (including its “anarchist” and “libertarian” contingents) towards anyone with political, social, or cultural values that conflict with hard-left orthodoxy, it is unlikely that these elements will ever be able to peacefully co-exist with those who are different from themselves.  The PC Left contains within itself the Lenins, Stalins, Maos, Castros, and Pol Pots of the future.

This is not to say that one cannot theoretically be a cultural leftist and simultaneously oppose Totalitarian Humanism. One can be a worker, a political leftist, or even a socialist, and oppose Marxism. One can be black, Jewish, or Hispanic and oppose totalitarian multiculturalism. Many do. One can be a woman and oppose the feminazis. There are many of these. One can certainly be gay and oppose the “homo-totalitarians.” Plenty of examples of this exist. Many of my own views on various issues are well to the left of the Democratic Party, if not the Green Party. Yet Totalitarian Humanism needs to be recognized for what it is, the third triplet after Communism and Fascism.

The Necessity of Strategic and Organizational Thinking

A criticism that has been issued against my outlook in the past is that it is overly concerned with pragmatic or strategic considerations and not rooted strongly enough in matters of abstract principle. But ideas are worthless (Stirnerite “spooks”) if they cannot be translated into real world action. If we wanted we could simply form a monastery where we sit around and debate whether drunk driving interferes with anyone’s property rights or whether non-coercive ageism or transphobia conflicts with the natural rights of man, but for what purpose other than intellectual masturbation? If that is what some wish to do, so be it, but for those of us who want an anti-state movement that is a real world contender, matters of strategy and organization are indispensable. Therefore, considerations of what kinds of demographic groupssubtendenciesorganizational methods, and tactical efforts are most conducive to the success of the objectives outlined above, and considerations of time frame, are essential to our wider theoretical framework.

The Necessity of High Intellectual Standards and Political Foresight

While considerations of strategy and action are important to the formulation of theory, this does not mean that we should not aspire to high intellectual standards. For one thing, the purpose of ARV/ATS is not to simply be popular and attract sympathizers, but to cultivate an elite leadership corps who will be the revolutionary elite of a future anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist populist movement. A competent leadership corps has to first possess not only high intellectual standards but a capacity for serious political foresight. These considerations are relevant to many different questions. For now, we can reflect a bit on the relevance of these to the immigration question, given that immigration is at present a prominent and controversial public issue.

With the exception of the paleo-libertarians, national-anarchists, and perhaps some Green-anarchists, most present-day anti-state radicals generally advocate “open borders,” meaning that the existing states should simply order their border and coast guards to stand down and allow entry into their respective countries by anyone who wishes to enter for whatever reason. If that’s how many if not most libertarians or anarchists feel at present, then that’s their prerogative. Yet the popularity of a position should not be a barrier to its challenge. After all, if the goal were to simply be popular in the anarchist milieu, our own tendencies would not even exist in the first place.

I criticize the “open borders” beliefs of many anarchists for a variety of reasons. First, I regard mass immigration as a phenomenon that is actually generated by the forces of State, Capital, and Empire, and serves the interests of present day political elites and ruling classes. Second, I am skeptical as to whether a civilization of anarchic communities would actually have “open borders” as many anarchists conceive of such. “Open borders” simply invites the existing state to impose a uniform immigration standard on all communities and institutions within the wider society. There is likely to be a considerably greater degree of variation with regards to matters of immigration and citizenship in the absence of an overarching statist system. Third, it is doubtful that the cultural and social ultra-liberalism promoted by many anarchists and libertarians is compatible with the importation of unlimited numbers of persons from profoundly illiberal cultural environments. Fourth, the history of efforts by genuinely multi-ethnic and multicultural societies to maintain civil peace is not a particularly happy one or a cause for optimism. Fifth, there are the practical costs of mass immigration. For instance, do we really want North America to become as populous as China or India? Lastly, I am skeptical as to whether anarchists who champion “open borders” the most fervently are motivated primarily by anti-statist or civil libertarian concerns.

For instance, many anarchists have not devoted nearly as much effort, or no effort at all, to opposing statist legislation that is far more onerous or draconian in content and effect than the recently enacted Arizona immigration law. So are these anarchists motivated by anti-statism and civil libertarianism, or are they motivated more by universalism, e.g. the view that immigration is a good unto itself regardless of the state’s role in fostering or prohibiting it? What sort of concerns do they express? What sort of criticisms do they raise? Do they say “Requiring travelers to display passports is a statist interference with freedom to travel!”? Perhaps they do at times, but there are plenty of laws on the books of a comparable nature that they rarely if ever discuss, for instance, those requiring motorists to obtain and carry a driver’s license. Are they not more likely to say, “Restricting immigration is racist and xenophobic!” It is fairly clear that for many of the “open borders” anarchists and libertarians, univeralism rather than anti-statism is the guiding value.

Now, to be fair, it should be pointed out that those anti-statists with anti-immigration views are often likewise motivated by values beyond those of mere concern with the role of the state in promoting or sponsoring immigration. The same could be said of libertarians holding opposing views on other controversial matters like abortion or capital punishment. Yet,  anti-statists who are anti-immigration are typically much more likely to demonstrate anti-universalism. For instance, Hans Herman Hoppe is a leading paleolibertarian critic of “open borders” libertarians, yet he recognizes the degree of discrimination or non-discrimination, inclusion or exclusion, homogeneity or heterogeneity, will inevitably vary from community to community and institution to institution minus a system of uniformity imposed by the central state. Likewise, the national-anarchists typically recognize that the internal norms and standards of differing “tribes” or communities will vary greatly in the absence of the state, and typically understand that without the state homogeneous communities will co-exist with multicultural ones. Neither paleos nor national-anarchists typically engage in slander, vilification, threats, or violence towards those who do not share their views. Therefore, their claims of authenticity are at present the most valid and compelling.

The Necessity of a Flexibility of Theory and Tactics

The matter of immigration raises a few other issues that are relevant to the anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist paradigm. For instance, I have had some no doubt sincere and well-intentioned people ask questions such as these?

1) How can it be argued that the state promotes immigration and that immigrants benefit from statism when illegal immigrants are subject to arrest by the ICE or other police agencies?

2) Is not criticizing immigration promoting division among enemies of the state, thereby weakening the anti-state cause?

3) Is not criticizing immigration actually strengthening pro-state elements on the Right, who are after all motivated not by anti-statism but by statist nationalism?

4) Would not it be strategically more feasible to ally with immigrants against overarching common enemies, such as the global plutocracy?

Here are some short answers to these questions:

1) The state not a monolithic conspiracy. Many anarchists and libertarians seem to regard “the state” the same way Marxists regard “the capitalists” or Nazis regard “the Jews.” The state is a collection of certainly overlapping and interconnected interests, but one that also contains within itself plenty of contradictions and conflicts. Yes, certain elements within the state (for instance, the ICE or Joe Arpaio) might well have self-interest in enforcing immigration law. But plenty of other interests within the state actually benefit from immigration. These have been widely documented by immigration critics. Further, simply being a lawbreaker does not necessarily make one an enemy of the state per se, much less an anarchist revolutionary. If mere law-breaking were to be our standard of anarchist authenticity, then we would have to say that dirty cops are among the most anarchistic of all. After all, dirty cops commit perjury, plant evidence, engage in police brutality, confiscate drugs and then use or sell them, steal from evidence lockers, accept bribes, participate in illegal searches and seizures, solicit sexual favors from suspects or prisoners, or even engage in outright common crimes such as robbery, rape, kidnapping, and murder. There are certainly plenty of laws prohibiting these things, but are we prepared to argue that such cops measure up to anarchist standards?

2) For reasons that are widely known, it is doubtful whether immigrants, or even illegal immigrants, can be classified as enemies of the state on any kind of consistent level. AsAndrew Yeoman succinctly put it: “…the ideal is to decentralize political power and increase the power of local institutions outside state control. This does not mean supporting illegal immigrants, who aren’t outside the state — to the contrary. Illegals represent a minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority by fully integrating itself within the state. Illegals oppose state power just as much as they oppose capitalism, which is to say, not at all — they are here to make money and eager to take advantage of all the benefits of the welfare system. They are also seeking race replacement.

3) It is undoubtedly true that many on the anti-immigration Right are motivated less by an opposition to the imposition of a uniform and universalist immigration policy by the central state, and more by a desire for a xenophobic brand of statist nationalism? But to what degree are these elements reflective of ruling class values or elite consensus, or even the mainstream of public opinion? For instance, the New York Times (which Abbie Hoffman used to refer to as “the voice of the ruling class”) has consistently taken an “open borders” stance, as has theWall Street Journal (which might be called “the voice of the global plutocracy”). The evidence is overwhelming that while elites and the radical Left share the common goal of total or near-total abolition of immigration standards, hard-core “xenophobes” are a fairly marginal, fringe movement. Research indicates that the average American of all races or colors generally has a tolerant view of legal immigrants, while regarding present immigration rates as too high and believing that illegal immigration should be barred. This is hardly an indication of imminent genocide as “immigrants’ rights” hysterics would have us believe.

4) All of these issues aside, are there indeed areas or situations where illegal immigrants might well be potential allies? Aside from my strenuously un-PC views on certain questions, one of the areas of my own thinking that often raises the most eyebrows is my position that outlaw organizations might well be valuable allies against the state in certain instances. For instance, motorcycle gangs, survivalist militias, common street gangs, exotic cults, and the like. There are a number of reasons why I hold to this view. One is the obvious. Many of these groups view themselves as a nation of their own that is at war with the government, therefore in a situation of direct conflict with the state, they may be viable military allies against a common enemy. Second, many of these groups have a history of being in direct conflict and combat with the repressive apparatus of the state, e.g. the BATF, FBI, DEA, or state and local SWAT teams or paramilitary police. Thirdly, by recruiting them as allies or mercenaries for “our side” we prevent our various enemies from doing so.  There are other, less significant reasons why I take this position as well.

This brings us to the final question of on what issues might it be appropriate to take a pro-immigration stance or to ally ourselves with illegal immigrants. As mentioned, individuals participants in the anarcho-pluralist/pan-secessionist project can have any other views they wish. By extension, they can advocate for their own tribe, community, or territory whatever political values they wish. For instance, if some left-anarchists, left-libertarians, Hispanic ethno-nationalists, or liberal multiculturalists decide to organize a Miami secessionist movement (the “Republic of Miami”) and decide they wish for an independent Miami to have completely open borders, so be it. If most people in a liberal metropolis like New York City or San Francisco prefer that these regions be “sanctuary cities,” then that’s how it will be. Likewise, while I would defend Arizona’s sovereignty against the feds regarding the controversial immigration law, if one of Arizona’s cities or counties, say, Tucson or Flagstaff, decided to secede from Arizona in protest of the immigration law, I would defend their right to do so as well. Nor does this mean that any policy of any seceded polity is necessarily “written in stone.” For instance, in an independent Arizona, pro-immigrationists could certainly agitate for less restrictive immigration policies, and I would defend their free speech rights to do so. In an independent  “Republic of Miami” with open borders, immigration restrictionists could push for more limits on immigration, and I would likewise defend their free speech rights as well.

An analogy could be made to class issues. Any interest of mine is organizing secessionist efforts by large cites with an emphasis on class issues. While I am a Southerner, neo-confederate ideology or Dixieland revivalism doesn’t really interest me much. Instead, I would prefer to develop secession movements on the part of the large metro areas like Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans, Chattanooga, Charleston, and so forth. The focus would be on achieving economic self-sufficiency and self-determination for the lower classes, and on repealing policies that generate much of the violent crime in these urban areas, particularly drug prohibition. Consequently, if we were to organize a general strike or mass walkout by workers in fast food chains, superstore chains, meatpacking plants, crony-capitalist real estate developments, or agribusiness plantations, I would very much advocate labor solidarity among all the workers, even though many of these places employ illegal immigrants.

At the same time, as part of the process of developing a pan-secessionist movement, I am certainly open to class collaboration on certain issues. While my personal focus would be on the urban lower classes, in many of the counties surrounding my own city there are affluent, upper-middle class communities with strong conservative leanings. If indeed a secessionist movement motivated by a desire to simply not pay taxes to Washington, D.C. or the state government were to emerge among such people, I would certainly back their efforts. Likewise, even though I am a pro-abortion atheist who thinks the cause of gay marriage is more silly than offensive, if a rural county or small town comprised of evangelical Christians or other religious conservatives were to secede rather than recognize Roe v. Wade or gay rights/gay marriage laws, I would support their efforts as well.

In a similar vein, given the reality that the future of the American Southwest likely belongs to Aztlan, it may well be likely that tactical collaboration with Hispanic ethno-nationalist secessionists in the Southwest, including many illegal immigrants or their immediate descendants, will be strategically feasible or even necessary at some point in the future.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation

Video: Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation

USDA found to be poisoning bird populations, causing mass die-offs involving millions of birds

Friday, January 21, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com



Not all the mysterious bird die-offs that have been witnessed around the globe recently are due to unexplained causes. A recent mass die-off event witnessed in Yankton, South Dakota was traced back to the USDA which admitted to carrying out a mass poisoning of the birds.

After hundreds of starlings were found dead in the Yankton Riverside Park, concerned citizens began to investigate. Before long, a USDA official called the local police and admitted they had poisoned the birds. "They say that they had poisoned the birds about ten miles south of Yankton and they were surprised they came to Yankton like they did and died in our park," says Yankton Animal Control Officer Lisa Brasel, as reported by KTIV (http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.as...).

The USDA then confirmed the story and explained it was all "part of a large killing" in Nebraska. Some of the birds that ate the poison apparently flew all the way to Yankton before succumbing to the poison.

Watch the video yourself, as reported from KTIV:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=19157...

USDA mass-murders birds on a regular basis


So why was the USDA poisoning birds in the first place? A Nebraska farmer was apparently complaining that the starlings were defecating in his feed meal. The answer to this conundrum apparently isn't to cover your feed meal but rather call the USDA and ask them to poison thousands of birds.

The USDA complied, apparently agreeing this was a brilliant idea. So they put out a poison called DRC-1339 and allowed thousands of birds to feed on that poison.

Carol Bannerman from USDA Wildlife Services ridiculously claimed the bird kill was also to protect "human health."

"We're doing it to address, in this case, agricultural damage as well as the potential for human health and safety issues," she said. That's just a lie, of course. In what universe do starlings pose a threat to human health and safety?

The USDA Wildlife Services website, by the way, is http://www.aphis.usda.gov

The USDA even has a name for this mass poisoning program: Bye Bye Blackbird. Through the use of poisons such as DRC-1339, the USDA has killed more than four million birds over the last several years, reports Truthout (http://www.truth-out.org/bye-bye-bl...).

They even proudly publish an online spreadsheet showing just how many they've murdered with poison: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_...

Remember, these are mass bird killings that are funded with your tax dollars. It all makes you wonder whether the government is, in fact, responsible for many of the other mysterious animal deaths that have been reported across the country (and around the globe).

It also makes you wonder: If the federal government thinks nothing of murdering 4 million living, breathing birds, then what else might they be capable of doing out of a total lack of respect for wildlife?

And if the USDA poisons birds because certain groups become too populous, what do you suppose is planned for when human population grows too large?

Be sure to check out the video at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=19157...


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031076_USDA_bird_deaths.html#ixzz1BzHBlPYc


Wednesday, January 19, 2011

World Chemtrail Awareness day screening of: What in the world are they spraying?



In lamentation of World Chemtrail Awareness day, WeAreChangeNYC  and NATA-NY will be screening G. Edward Griffins new film: What in the world are they spraying?

The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed. By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze. Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: who is doing this and why. With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water – all supposedly for the betterment of mankind. Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 – and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it. Do not watch this documentary if you have high blood pressure. Film trailer here.

The film will begin @ 7:30pm @ 56 Walker street two blocks south of Canal st. just west of Broadway. $10 suggested donation, no one will be turned away. All the proceeds from this event will go to WeAreChangeNYC so we can continue to have events, print fliers etc.

*WeAreChangeNYC and NATA-NY are holding a dry food and clothing drive. The clothing will be donated to the Vietnam Veterans Association and the food to the local Food Not Bombs chapter. Please bring your donations to this and future street actions and events until the end of the month.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Food “Safety” Bill Empowers Monsanto To Control Food Industry

“If you control the food, you can control the people.” – Henry Kissinger

by Stephanie Spinelli
TruthSquad.TV
1/13/2011

Under the guise of protecting Americans from food-borne illnesses, Congress has passed the S510 Food Safety Act, granting unlimited power to the FDA to oversee the processing of food from farm to table.  The FDA has led the public to believe over a number of years that we desperately need government protection from food-borne illnesses.  As a result of this manipulation, the S510 Food Safety has been passed without opposition.  Ironically, the regulatory actions made possible by this bill will only promote the type of farming that produces food borne illnesses.

The S510 Food Safety Act will regulate the entire process of food production from every source in the United States.  Farms must submit to government inspections and have safety documentation on record for 2 years.  This documentation must be made promptly available upon oral or written request by an FDA agent. Farms are responsible for the fees associated with their own inspections.  The FDA will also oversee food transportation within the United States; food imported from other countries will not be regulated but must simply carry a guarantee of safety by the exporting country.  This imbalance in addition to the bill-related costs imposed on farmers will cause prices of locally produced food to increase exponentially.

Starting with the enactment of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) measures by President Bill Clinton in the 90’s, the biotech/agribusiness industry has been making the necessary moves to arrive at this point; while HACCP is focused on prevention, the S510 Food Safety is focused on inspection. Combined, these laws will enable the FDA to completely control the process of food production. As if controlling our food weren’t enough, the agribusiness industry is voraciously seeking to have vitamins and supplements be redefined as drugs, so that the FDA can limit the amount that can be legally purchased.  Once we can no longer take the proper amounts of nutrients for prevention of disease, we will be forced to turn to the pharmaceutical industry for medication.

As the bill is written, the FDA must consult with “farmer representatives” to publish guides for good practice.  The farmer representatives will no doubt include Monsanto, the biotech company standing behind the bill that stands to benefit from it the most. The FDA is intimately linked with Monsanto – Michael Taylor, a lawyer who volleys between an appointed post at the FDA and employment by Monsanto, pushed through the concept of “substantial equivalence”, which opened the doors for Monsanto to flood the market with unlabeled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s).  In July 2009, the Obama Administration appointed Taylor “Food & Drug Czar” as head of the FDA. This move ensures Monsanto’s influence of its own regulation. The fox now has the keys to the hen house.

S510 grants the FDA and in turn, Monsanto, unbridled power to make all of their own rules for governing food going forward:

‘(d) No Limit on Secretarial Authority- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of the Secretary to review and act upon information from food testing, including determining the sufficiency of such information and testing.’

The FDA will determine if, when, and what types of food safety testing are necessary. “In the interest of national security”, the FDA will decide what information will be made available to the public.  In keeping with their trend of raiding farms and markets that sell raw milk, the bill also provides for the organizing, training and equipping of animal, plant, and food emergency response teams.

The L.A. Times reported that in June of 2010, four officers raided Rawesome Foods, an organic food co-op in Venice California, with their guns drawn. The officers were in search of raw, unpasteurized milk. Cartons of raw goat’s and cow’s milk as well as blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese were among the groceries seized by federal, state and local authorities. If raw milk could produce such an excessive show of force when there were no laws being broken, what will happen now that there is a law in place?

Interestingly, the bill includes a provision requiring parents to provide documentation to their children’s school regarding any food allergies their children have.  On the surface, giving the school administration advance notice of an allergy seems like a good thing; however, as Truth Squad has previously reported, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “Fusion Centers” across the country are consolidating and standardizing the databases of local and federal agencies in an attempt to fight foreign and domestic terrorism. These “fusion centers” violate the 4th & 5th Constitutional Amendments and set up frightening Stasi-like government lists, with no judge, no jury, no due process. Do you want your child in the DHS database?

Since the bill was first introduced in March of 2009, articles written about it have done their best to squelch any fears consumers might have of losing their favorite local farmers’ markets by supposing they would not be included.  This created false hope: Within the US, “very small businesses” are to be regulated, including farmers markets, farm stands and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA’s).  In fact, the only exclusion is food grown for personal consumption.  In other words, our only hope is to each learn how to grow our own food, because the day is coming when that will be the only food safe to eat.

[caption id="attachment_196" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Police raid organic market with guns drawn. "][/caption]

“If you control the food, you can control the people.” – Henry Kissinger