Interesting TED Talk on what income inequality does to a society

Sunday Youtube Post

Ireland just elected a socialist president!

Here's a great speech he gave last year on the minimum wage. Oh, to live outside a one-party state...

Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges interviewed by Charlie Rose about the Occupy Movement

Can't find any embed code, but here's the video. These are two of the best minds in politics right now, and I'm pretty ecstatic about both of them being in the same room at once. Guess who has a signed Amy Goodman book (sunglasses.gif)



In addition, he had Slavoj Žižek on a couple days later. Good week, Charlie Rose, good week.

Mumia Abu Jamal, on the Occupy movement, the Tea Partiers, and the original 1773 Boston Tea Party

Nailed it.

Police smash Occupy Oakland

Early yesterday morning, police in full riot gear descended on the occupiers in Oakland, tossing smoke canisters and flashbang grenades, and shooting at them with rubber bullets. The protesters were peaceful and did nothing to instigate this. Here's some footage. At about a minute in, you'll see a protester being carried off who was shot in the face with a rubber bullet.



In this video, when protesters attempt to help a man lying injured in front of a police line, the police toss a flashbang grenade right in the middle of them. The injured man is a Marine who served two tours in Iraq. Edit: The man on the ground here is the same guy being carried away in the last video. It wasn't a rubber bullet, a tear gas canister hit him in the head. He's in the hospital with a fractured skull in critical condition. Doctors aren't sure whether he'll suffer permanent brain damage.



And here are cops tearing down the camp.



The crackdown is understandable. Protesters shut down Chase Bank a few days before (the black flags suggest anarchists). You got tens of thousands of people being forced out of their homes, but the moment you step into the home of the people doing the foreclosing, you get a tear gas canister shoved up your ass.



In addition, Google says that cops tried to get them to take down videos of police brutality from youtube. We got them scared shitless. Be prepared to see more things like this very soon.

Edit: Democracy Now covered Occupy Oakland today. If you don't watch this show regularly, there's never been a better time to start, they upload the show to their website and onto their podcast every day. Turn off the cable.

Hero of the Egyptian Revolution makes surprise visit to Occupy Wall Street

Everybody watch this, it had me nearly in tears



Occupy Wall Street also received a statement today from Cairo, making it clear that Egypt is with us. This is so beautiful, new york is calling me I'd give anything to be there right now holy fuck with the freedom

"Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein

Originally published in the Monthly Review in May of 1949

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Sunday Youtube Post

Heroes.

A Brief History of Imperialist Interests in Haiti

Last year's earthquake in Haiti brought that little nation to the world's attention. After the initial reactions of horror and sympathy brought on by the pictures of that disaster, I'm sure a lot of people began wondering about the country's poverty. Just why was that country so poor? There's no real police force in their capital Port-au-Prince, and it is considered one of the most dangerous places on earth. How did this happen? Why are they in this situation to begin with?

It's a little-known and complex history, but everyone needs to understand it. Haiti's history is a shining example of the horrifying and unjust evils of imperialism. But Haiti's courageous mothers and fathers have also set an example for the rest of us, begging to be admired by freedom fighters all around the world.



Haiti occupies the western one-third of the island of Hispaniola, to the east of Cuba. Within fifty years of the Spanish arrival at Hispaniola, not a single Taino or Ciboney Indian was alive. Their civilizations were wiped off the earth. You may want to check out the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas for a first hand account of how this took place. Las Casas was ahead of his time. He was horrified by the atrocities he witnessed, and fought hard for aboriginal rights. But most people in his age considered him a fanatic. There are drawbacks to browsing through his writings. Your hands may ball into fists and shake with rage against your will, and you'll probably lose sleep. But you won't regret it.



Sugar would make the fortunes of the Caribbean. But farming and refining of sugarcane in the Caribbean's heat was torturous, backbreaking work, and no free man would do it. Slaves started arriving from Africa in 1502, only ten years after Columbus's arrival. The lucky ones who survived the boats were forced to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. On the seventh day, they were forced to grow their own food, or else starve to death. These slaves would die out just as quickly as the Taino and Coboney, but the supply from Africa seemed inexhaustible, so it mattered little to the Europeans. In Saint-Domingue alone (modern Haiti), slavery is estimated to have killed 1 million people.

In 1776, a revolution broke out in America. France eventually allied with the rebels, and Saint-Domingue, being French territory, sent over a regiment of black slaves and freedmen to fight with the Americans. They saw action at Saratoga and Savannah. When they returned, they brought back with them the idea that people don't have to put up with being dominated.

On the night of August 22, 1791, drumming was heard all over the north of Saint-Domingue. It heralded the Haitian Revolution. A Vodou priest declared that all whites must die. "We must not leave any refuge, or any hope of salvation." Over a thousand plantations were burned, and tens of thousands of people were massacred.



The United States sent arms to the black army. This move was not idealistic. Like the French, the Americans did not think of black Haitians as human beings like themselves. America simply wanted the French out of the Caribbean. President John Adams noted of the Haitians in 1799, "Independence is the worst and most dangerous condition they can be in for the United States."

A hero emerged for the Haitians, and he brought order, stability, and respect to the new army - Toussaint L'Ouverture. Born into slavery, Toussaint learned to read, and was inspired by Julius Caesar's commentaries for his political and military education. He gained control of the entire country by 1800, and declared independence. He banned slavery, annexed the Spanish side of the island to the east, Santo Domingo, and at least for a brief time, Hispaniola was united again. The Haitian Revolution remains the only successful slave revolution in the history of the world.



From the very beginning, Europe and America refused to consider Haiti a legitimate government. In February 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte sent his brother-in-law, General Charles Leclerc, to retake Haiti. Leclerc promised the Haitians that French rule in the future would be free and equal. Many of Toussaint's best generals betrayed him, and defected to the French. Toussaint was captured a few months later, his family kidnapped along with him. They were shipped to France. Toussaint defiantly told his captors,

"In overthrowing me you have cut down in Saint Domingue only the trunk of the tree of liberty; it will spring up again from the roots, for they are many and they are deep."

He was imprisoned high in the Alps. Toussaint was found dead the following spring, cold body huddled sadly next to the fireplace in his cell. His colossal monuments remain unbuilt.



France's inevitable betrayal came in July. Slavery was reimposed throughout the French empire, and Haitian blacks were thrown back into shackles. At once, black soldiers who had fought for the French rose up again. Leclerc told Napoleon that he "shall have to wage a war of extermination" if slavery was made into law again. Luckily, a yellow fever epidemic wiped out most of the French army, including Leclerc himself, and the Haitians soundly defeated what remained. They renamed the country Haiti, after it's Taino name, Ayiti, land of the mountains. General Jean-Jacques Dessalines (who remained loyal to Toussaint, and continued with the revolution) said "I have given the French cannibals blood for blood. I have avenged America."

The United States Congress banned trade with Haiti in 1806. President Thomas Jefferson felt that non-Europeans were not yet "capable" of enjoying liberty. In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said that the United States "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence to all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Two years later, he formally notified Spain of America's interest in acquiring Cuba.

In 1825, the French sent warships to encircle Haiti's coastlines. That land - and slaves - was stolen French property. Now she demanded reparations: 150 million francs, in gold.

This violated the Monroe Doctrine. Issued in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine stated that any attempts at colonization or interference in the Americas by European powers, would be considered an act of aggression against the United States. Americans would've cared that this violated the Monroe Doctrine, had Haiti been ruled by white people. The U.S. did nothing.

150 million francs was ten times Haiti's annual revenue. But with French guns aimed at Port-au-Prince, they didn't have much of a choice. Haiti needed to take on loans to cover the first payment--30 million francs. Interest for 20% of this loan was demanded in advance. The entire Haitian treasury had to be emptied simply for that. Haiti finally completed paying off these "reparations" in 1947. 1947. In 1947, France, post-World War II, still considered human enslavement legitimate.

For most of Haiti's history, it would see outside influences mucking up its sovereignty, and inserting their illegitimate leaders, under the threat of military occupation. In 1915, the U.S.-backed dictator Vilbrun Guillaume Sam saw a revolution on his hands. He ordered his soldiers to massacre 167 political prisoners the moment the first rebel bullet was fired. And thus, 167 people were murdered when that bullet was fired. One soldier gouged out a child's eyes, and pried out his teeth one by one, before finally murdering him.



Sam meanwhile fled to the French embassy, where he had been so nobly granted asylum. A mob, enraged at the massacre that had just taken place, stormed the embassy, pulled him off the toilet on which he was trembling in fear, and beat him to death in the streets. Sic semper tyrannis, you son of a fuck.

News of these events soon reached the American ships anchored in the harbor of the capital. Haiti descended into anarchy, and when Woodrow Wilson ordered the invasion, the protection the American troops offered was actually fairly welcomed. But there was a problem. The U.S. didn't like the man the Haitians wanted to be president, Rosalvo Bobo. So the U.S. picked Haiti's president for them, and forced them sign a constitution they didn't want. American troops would remain in Haiti for the next nineteen years, crushing democratic movements, installing puppet governments, and running their economy. During their occupation, the United States decided to just take land from the Dominican Republic on the eastern side of the island. As soon as the U.S. left in 1934, the Dominican dictator sent over troops and massacred 20,000 Haitians who lived on the disputed land.



Don't think for a second that Haiti is an isolated case. The U.S. has a long and distinguished history of overthrowing Latin American governments for its own interests. Just yesterday, President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala apologized to his nation for a "great crime." That crime was the CIA's overthrow of Guatemala's democratic government in 1957. It was on behalf of the American monopoly, United Fruit Company. It was for bananas.

And don't think these tactics have stopped. In 2004, the U.S. once again ousted Haiti's democratically elected president. That's right. Only seven years ago. Since it's so recent, the details of course remain sketchy, but considering the fact that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forcibly removed from power on an American plane, guarded by American troops, it's not all that crazy to make presumptions.

Starting his life as a priest, Aristide founded an orphanage in Haiti in the 80s, and encouraged the children he served to participate in politics and democracy. This earned Aristide a lot of enemies. He's survived at least four assassination attempts, one of which was the St. Jean Bosco Massacre. On September 11, 1988, as the army and police stood by and watched, over a hundred armed men wearing red armbands entered Aristide's church during mass, and fired machine guns into the congregation. Those who tried to escape were butchered with machetes. The exact death toll is unknown, but estimates put it at 50 at the most, with even more injured.



Catholics in Rome ordered Aristide to leave Haiti, expelled him from the Salesian Order, and called his political activities an "incitement to hatred and violence." Tens of thousands of protesters blocked Aristide's access to the airport. On his expulsion, Aristide said, "The crime of which I stand accused is the crime of preaching food for all men and women."

In 1990, he won the presidency with 67% of the vote. Aristide got to work initiating substantial reforms, infuriating Haiti's business and military elite. He attempted to bring the military under civilian control, initiated investigations into humans rights violations, and banned the emigration of elite Haitians until their bank accounts could be examined.

The military overthrew him in September 1991. The Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN) played a prominent role in this coup. The CIA set up and financed SIN in the 1980s. Emmanuel Constant, who had been on the CIA's payroll, established death squads to murder and terrorize Aristide supporters. It's important to remember that this evidence of CIA involvement is circumstantial, there's nothing concrete, and Haiti's elite wanted Aristide out from the beginning. It very well could've been internal. Aristide himself travelled around the world in his exile, building international support. The UN established a trade embargo against Haiti. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton considered the U.S. exempt from this embargo.

In 1994, with building pressure from the UN and the U.S., the regime in Haiti backed down. With U.S. troops accompanying him, Aristide stepped back onto Haitian soil, and he was once again welcomed into office. He disbanded the army of Haiti, and established a civilian police force. This wasn't unconditional. He was forced to reverse many of his reforms thanks to U.S. pressure. Noam Chomsky says:

"When Clinton restored Aristide - Clinton of course supported the military junta, another little hidden story... he strongly supported it in fact. He even allowed the Texaco Oil Company to send oil to the junta in violation of presidential directives; Bush Sr. did so as well - well, he finally allowed the president to return, but on condition that he accept the programs of Marc Bazin, the US candidate that he had defeated in the 1990 election. And that meant a harsh neoliberal program, no import barriers. That means that Haiti has to import rice and other agricultural commodities from the US from US agribusiness, which is getting a huge part of its profits from state subsidies. So you get highly subsidized US agribusiness pouring commodities into Haiti; I mean, Haitian rice farmers are efficient but nobody can compete with that, so that accelerated the flight into the cities."

In December 2003, Aristide boldly demanded $21 billion dollars from France in reparations - the modern day sum of those 150 million francs, which launched Haiti into its current state of poverty and violence. Aristide's courageous actions to give power back to the Haitian people violated the first rule of leading nations within America's sphere of influence - shut the fuck up and do what you're told.

Two months later, in February 2004, the brutal murder of a gang leader sparked a rebellion. The brother of the assassinated gang leader blamed Aristide, took over the gang, and renamed it from the "Cannibal Army," to the "National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti." Immediately, Aristide's lawyers claimed that the U.S. began to supply them with weapons. On February 28, Aristide was kidnapped and flown out of the country.

Three days later, US Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Aristide family friend Randall Robinson, both reported that Aristide had called them from the plane, and told them that he had been abducted, and was being held hostage by an armed military guard. He said that someone from the U.S. Embassy came to his house and told him that he would be killed "and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he did not leave with them immediately. He was taken to Jamaica, and then to South Africa. Wikileaks cables have since revealed that the U.S. pressured South Africa to take and hold Aristide, or else face the loss of a UN Security Council seat. When asked for an explanation, Colin Powell practically admitted it: "it might have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."

Aristide remained in exile until earlier this year. He stepped foot on Haitian soil again on March 17. Barack Obama asked the South African president to delay his departure until after the Haitian elections, fearing it would be "destabilizing." You know what else is destabilizing? Military coups.

Aristide's party was not allowed to run in the election. Stepping off the airplane, he told the thousands of supporters waiting for him, "The exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas is the exclusion of the Haitian people. In 1804, the Haitian revolution marked the end of slavery. Today, may the Haitian people end exiles and coup d’états, while peacefully moving from social exclusion to inclusion."

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was with Aristide on the plane when it landed. Here's that tearjerking episode in its entirety. Aristide himself is interviewed near the end.



It's a little surprising that the U.S. government suddenly started pretending to care about the Haitian people when the earthquake struck in 2010. Professional fatass and racist Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was going to use the crisis to "boost his credibility with the black community." He blamed Haiti's poverty on "communism," and said "We've already donated to haiti, it's called US income tax." HERP DERP.

Televangelist joke Pat Robertson said the earthquake struck Haiti because they are "cursed" and they signed a "pact to the devil." Here are Keith Olbermann's brief, but brilliant comments concerning these sorry excuses for human beings.



But more importantly, here are comments from the Haitians themselves. It starts out with Robertson's comments, and a Haitian gives his reaction at 1:05.



So. This is why Haiti is Haiti. It's because of us. We did this to them. So, as the rest of America continues to wave their flags in blissful ignorance of the atrocities their government continues to commit in their names, there's a quiet phrase uttered in Godspeed's song, The Dead Flag Blues, which observant men and women have the mental capacity to reflect on:

"I open up my wallet. And it's full of blood."

Chris Hedges interviewed at Occupy Wall Street

Read this guy's books

Marine vet who stood up to cops at Times Square interviewed on Countdown

If you haven't seen this yet, you should watch it.



Olbermann interviewed him tonight, here are parts of it:EDIT: The whole thing's up on youtube:



Also, when I went to Current's website to get that video, I saw this



YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

We're finally getting a television station with a liberal voice. MSNBC's okay, but they're too dependent on the two-party system, and they never criticize the Democrats for being a moderate conservative party. Current now has two of the three liberal media figures I truly love. Come on over, Rachel. You know you want to.

Sunday Youtube Post

Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD

A fat middle aged white conservative has infiltrated Occupy Wall Street!



Thomas Ryan is a self-described "security expert." He's a conservative. He's an American. He showed up to Occupy Wall Street meetings, got on their mailing list, and forwarded their emails to the NYPD, NBC, his buddy at the FBI, and yellow journalist Andrew Breitbart. Of course, nobody asked for them except for Breitbart, he just sort of did it. You're exposed, Occupy Wall Street. More like OCCUPY COMMUNISM.

Ryan is such an expert with security, that he accidentally exposed himself as the “snitch” when he forgot to delete his own forwarded emails, upon releasing everything. Hey Thomas Ryan, great job infiltrating an organization that welcomes everybody and has nothing to hide. Kudos.

Of course, nobody gives a shit about this because there’s nothing incriminating. OR IS THERE? One email:

"We’re in this for the long haul. There are no “solutions” that can be presented quickly to make us go away. And so there will be moments where our presence is no longer an uncomfortable and unknown variable, but rather is normalized and integrated. It’s in those moments that we have to push the envelop [sic], pry open the space of possibility even farther. We go as far as we can to destabalize [sic], but maintain momentum. And when that’s the new “normal” then we go farther. That’s how change happens, how we shift the terrain and the terms of the game."

Andrew Breitbart sees this for what it really is — Communism. Occupy Wall Street is actually trying to “destabilize global markets.” It doesn’t matter that the words “global markets” are not included in this email. Andrew Breitbart can read between the lines. But that’s not all. Thomas Ryan himself goes on to say that Occupy Wall Street is in league with Al-Qaeda. It's funny because conservatives say these protesters are the ones who have nothing better to do, and live in their parents' basements.

Ryan:

My respect for FDNY & NYPD stems from them risking their lives to save mine when my house was on fire in sunset park when I was 8 yrs old. Also, for them risking their lives and saving many family and friends during 9/11.

Don’t you find it Ironic that out of all the NYPD involved with the protest, [protesters] have only targeted the ones with Black Ribbons, given to them for their bravery during 9/11?

I am sorry if we see things differently, I try to look at everything as a whole and in patterns. Everything we do in life and happens in life, there is a pattern behind it.

Occupy Movement goes worldwide tomorrow

So the protest in New York dodged a bullet. The mayor backed off and the park wasn't stormed. Which is a good thing, because they weren't moving, and it would've been a bloodbath. I can't believe how easy it was though. The unity and decisiveness of the people there is really inspiring, they just drew a line and said "no." A quote from Gene Sharp comes to mind: "Dictators are never as strong as they tell you they are — and the people are never as weak as they think they are."



Tomorrow is where it's happening though. Protesters all around the world are taking to the streets in solidarity with the Occupy movement. Italy couldn't wait. Here's protesters in Milan today tossing fruit at riot police, and storming the offices of Goldman Sachs.



FUCK YEAH!

There's one going on in downtown Springfield tomorrow. But they're only wanting about 200 people, and actual numbers usually go well below estimates, so you know... meh. Springfield's sort of a moderate conservative town, so I doubt this will really do anything, aside from mental masturbation, and getting my Republican parents pissed off at seeing my face on the nightly news. I'd rather watch the bigger protests over the internet, where things matter. The real action's in New York and D.C. Here's a photo from the one in D.C., where protesters have been signing this huge banner.



John Adams, reflecting on his life in his old age, once estimated how much of the American population supported the revolution. He guessed that about a third of Americans supported it, a third opposed it, and a third remained neutral. That seems sort of similar to the Occupy movement. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (WSJ is conservative) shows that 37% of Americans support the movement. But hey, only 18% oppose it! That's much better than Tea Party numbers, where only 28% support it, and 41% oppose it! Why the hell doesn't this "I don't know" 50% get off their damn fence, are they damn idiots or something?

A few organizations are throwing in their support, and I'm putting up their statements. You should take the time to read them. Here's one from a group of intellectuals, activists, and leftists in China, who oppose China's oppressive capitalist government:

The eruption of the “Wall Street Revolution” is an historical indicator that the popular democratic revolution that will soon sweep the world is set to begin. It is an especially significant and important event for this movement. Before this most recent action, street protests had virtually been exclusively used as a tool by US elite groups to subvert other countries. Now, however, the “Wall Street Revolution” – with its goals of shared prosperity and popular democracy – has launched protests in the country that is the self-proclaimed defender of democracy. This will inevitably strike a hard blow against the US elite group, itself responsible for the plunder and oppression of people all over the world, and the group that pushed the world into crisis and instability. The protests ring the death knell of the rule of capital. Popular democracy will replace elite democracy in the 21st Century, and the curtain has lifted on the movement from elite politics to popular politics. Using the language of the “Wall Street Revolution,” this is a struggle of the popular 99% against the corrupt 1%, a struggle of the popular 99% against the elite 1%,and is the final struggle of the popular forces against elite capitalist rule.

The world belongs to all of the people of the world. Countries belong to the entire people of those countries. Even moreso, wealth is produced by the entire people, and therefore should be shared by the entire people, it cannot be monopolized by the 1% – or even less than 1% – that is made up of an extremely small number of elites. The demand for common prosperity in economics, and popular democracy in politics has become an unstoppable historical trend! The rapid expansion of a fictitious economy and the massive flow of social wealth has created an amply reliable material foundation for the realization of the common wealth of all people. The development of internet technology and political civilization has created the conditions for human society to make the transition from capitalist democracy to popular democracy. Human society is fully capable of transforming, on the foundation of the past democracy of slaveholders, the democracy of feudal lords, and the democracy of the capitalist class, to make the fundamental shift from the democracy of the elites to real popular democracy. Common prosperity and popular democracy will become the main content of the historical transformation of the 21stCentury. No matter how brutally the American riot police will attempt to suppress the participants in the Wall Street revolution, no matter how much the global elites – especially those in the U.S. and China –try to suppress news of the Wall Street revolution, they cannot stop the vigorous growth and ultimate victory of the democratic revolution of the people of the world.

The violent repression and virtual blockade of news about the “Wall Street Revolution” by elite groups led by the US proves that the fate of oppressed people around the world is the same, regardless of whether they are from developed or developing countries, whether they are from so-called democracies or authoritarian countries. The international elite was the first class to link-up internationally via globalization. Their plunder of public wealth and repression of popular democratic movements is cruel and far-reaching, and utterly lacking in freedom and democracy. So-called freedom and democracy in modern society is nothing more than democracy for capitalism, an elite democracy. Freedom is another word for the elite to plunder, oppress and violently suppress others. Popular forces have been completely excluded from the freedoms and democracy of modern society, and the extent of democratic rights is to choose between presidential candidates that have already been vetted by capital. You can vote once every four years, but you have no way of affecting the people above you who directly determine your fate: your boss or superior. And there is no way of constraining the capitalist oligarchs who can take away the wealth of the majority of the population with the slight of hand of fictitious capital. Freedom and democracy have become a virtual game, nothing more than a tool to subvert other countries. Now the popular and democratic world revolution – symbolized by the “Wall Street Revolution”- demands an end to this political game, and that freedom and democracy be returned to the people. Democracy is not just a check on the president, but a check on government officials; democracy is not just a check on power, but a check on capital. If the rights and privileges of feudal and absolute rulers are understood to be a sin and abomination, then giving those rights to capital is also a travesty.

Securities and computer networks should have been two crucial elements of our shift from an industrial society to an information society, from a material economy to a virtual economy, from capitalism to a human-centered economic system, and from elite politics to popular politics. But the elite class has turned securities into a tool of appropriation akin to the ‘indulgences’ issued by middle-age church functionaries in Europe. In the new securitized economy, all the public’s wealth can easily melt into thin air – including their houses, wages, labor power and even their hope for the future. All these things have become the targets of appropriation by a tiny elite minority. Both the white-collar middle classes in developed countries – owners of fictitious property, and the blue-collar workers in developing countries who cannot afford housing or health care, belong in point of fact to the same class: modern proletariat. When the people protest the unprecedented plunder and vast income gap perpetrated by fictitious capital, they are met with violent repression – both in so-called democracy countries that claim to be defenders of human rights such as the US, and in authoritarian countries that are said to lack freedom and democracy. Faced with street protests erupting from the Balkans to North Africa, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have repeated over and over, “The rights of peaceful protest and the occupation of public space should be respected at all times.” Yet when US citizens attempt to exercise this right they immediately are faced with violent repression by armed police, and a blockade by the news media. If this is reaction of the US – the self-proclaimed leader in human rights – then we can imagine what the reaction will be in other capitalist countries. Rule by the capitalist elite is just as described by the “Wall Street Revolution” – everywhere. There is nowhere left were we can live and die as people.

The eruption of the “Wall Street Revolution” in the heart of the world’s financial empire shows that 99% of the world’s people remain exploited and oppressed – regardless of whether they are from developed or developing countries. People throughout the world see their wealth being plundered, and their rights being taken away. Economic polarization is now a common threat to all of us. The conflict between popular and elite rule is also found in all countries. Now, however, the popular democratic revolution meets repression not just from its own ruling class, but also from the world elite that has formed through globalization. The “Wall Street Revolution” has met with repression from US police, but also suffers from a media blackout organized by the Chinese elite.

The same fate, the same pain, the same problems, the same conflict. Faced with a common enemy in an elite global class that has already linked-up, the people of the world have only one option: to unite and in a unified and shared struggle overturn the rule of the capitalist elite, to ensure that everyone enjoys the basic human rights of work, housing, health care, education, and a secure old-age. But we must go further if we are to realize shared prosperity and popular democracy in a new socialist world historical framework, If we are to fully escape and neutralize the crises and disasters that capitalism has brought the human race, and realize harmonious social development.

The great “Wall Street Revolution” and the great popular “Chilean Winter” that preceded it signal that the day when we realize shared prosperity and popular democracy is approaching. It signals that worldwide popular and democratic socialist movement – dormant since the 1970s – is waking up again. But this time, it will be the final battle to put capitalism in its grave. The victory of popular democracy and death of elite rule are inevitable! The embers of revolt are scattered amongst us all, waiting to burn with the slightest breeze. The great era of popular democracy, set to change history, has arrived again!

Resolutely support the American people in the “Wall Street Revolution”!

Resolutely support all street protests pushing for shared prosperity and popular democracy!

Long live the “Wall Street Revolution”!

Long live the global movement for popular democracy!

Long live popular international solidarity!

FUCK. YEAH.

Here's a statement the Socialist Alliance released today:

The Occupy Wall Street protest started small. But it has now become a global movement, with occupy events planned in about 1500 cities worldwide.

It’s born out of the recognition that, in country after country, ordinary people are being made to pay for an economic crisis caused by the super-rich. The 99% are being told they must surrender their livelihoods, their future, their security and their dignity to keep a broken system afloat.

In contrast, the 1% are having a wonderful crisis. The world’s biggest corporations have emerged stronger, more profitable and more powerful than ever before.

To add insult to injury, the 1% want to convince us that we, the 99%, are to blame for the crisis. They say our wages are too high and that we don’t work hard enough. They say our social security systems are not affordable and that our rights at work are should be done away with. They say our public education and health systems are not efficient and that our public services must be privatised.

The occupy movement is raising a challenge to the power of the 1%. Its strength lies in its diversity, breadth, unity and grassroots democracy.

In New York, after two weeks of discussion, the protesters agreed on a declaration that said none of our big problems can be overcome unless the 99% can unite in a movement for real democracy.

The occupy movement has spread to Australia, with protests planned to start here from October 15.

It’s true the economic situation here is not yet as dire as in the US, where the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the poorest 150 million.

But Australia is headed in the same direction. We should not wait to protest until things get as bad as the US, Spain or Greece, where inequality reigns supreme.

Inequality in Australia is large and growing. Already, the richest 20% of Australians have 61% of the wealth. The poorest 20% have just 1% of the wealth. Australia’s richest 11 individuals have more than the poorest 800,000 households combined.

Further, there are many reasons why we should take this opportunity to start to bring Australia’s own 1% to account.

We should occupy because White Australia has occupied stolen Aboriginal land for more than two centuries. The dispossession of Aboriginal land and culture continues today with the infamous Northern Territory intervention, which is forcing Aboriginal people from their traditional homelands. Today, Aboriginal Australians are the most imprisoned people in the world. To Australia’s eternal shame, their life expectancy is still 19 years lower than other Australians.

We should occupy cities in Australia because the richest mining and energy corporations already occupy our atmosphere, pumping it full of greenhouse gases and ignoring the warnings from scientists that climate change threatens to destroy life as we know it.

We should occupy because coal seam gas and other fossil fuel companies already occupy our farmlands, our forests, our drinking water catchments and our communities. With government support, the fossil fuel industry has free reign across the country, regardless of the serious health and pollution risks.

We should occupy because the Australian military already occupies other countries, and is bringing endless war and countless civilian deaths to Afghanistan.

We should occupy because Australian governments, Liberal and Labor, have occupied Australia with refugee detention centres — modern-day concentration camps that bring immense suffering to desperate asylum seekers that deserve our help.

We should occupy because government laws already occupy our relationships, denying the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people to marry if they choose and making queers second-class citizens without equal rights.

We should occupy because restrictive anti-union laws already occupy our workplaces, denying the right of working people to organise to defend their rights at work.

We should occupy because governments have helped corporations occupy our public assets, turning services for the public good into profit machines for the 1%.

And we should occupy because Australia’s richest corporations already occupy our parliaments, state and federal.

The best democracy capitalism can deliver today is the right to tick a box once every few years. Between elections, corporations have open access to politicians while the rest of us are shut out, expected to bear the consequences in silence.

The 1% give millions to the big political parties each year and they demand a return on their investment. They skew the mainstream media debate in their interests because they are the mainstream media. They pour millions into cynical public relations and advertising campaigns. Corporate power over the political process is growing relentlessly.

The global 1% will not change their ways on their own account. Profit and greed are their only gods. Only the 99%, acting together, can put an end to the system of corporate rule and build something new in its place, a system that puts human need before corporate greed.

We won’t be silenced. Our power lies in our numbers. United as communities, with our unions and with each other, we can raise a challenge to corporate power.

FUCK. YEAH.

And this last one isn't from a group, but it's a great article about tomorrow's events. It sort of borders on propaganda, but hey, it gets the blood pumping.

It is five minutes to dawn and the wind smells like freedom

It is no longer five minutes to midnight. After Arab Spring leaps to Spain, and Greece, and on to New York’s Wall Street, it suddenly feels like five minutes to dawn.

We no longer need assume that there is no time to stop the world going to shit. There is an opening and we are flooding into it.

We are suddenly in a moment that is not marked by exhausted routine protests that speak for no one and speak to no one.

The oppressors (our common enemies) are no longer unchallenged — or more no longer unchallengeable. They are instead rocked backward, confused, bewildered, furious. The billionaire mayor of New York can’t clear a tiny park — and suddenly the question is not how to force the occupiers out, but whether he may be forced out of power if he pursues that course.

For so long, all of the things that leave people crying at night: the numbing global poverty itself, the painful loneliness of atomized non-community, the discarding of the old and the young, endless war for dominance, global structures of empire, the ravaging of nature, the manufacture of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry, the rape and casual daily brutality toward women — all of these things have seemed untouchable and permanent.

Now suddenly….a different day is approaching — where we can increasingly see and act in in startling ways, with rippling new impact. Ears perk up. Sights are raised. The pulse quickens. Suddenly we recognize the faces of others — once unknown to us — animated and awake with a common spirit. The powerful look discredited and vulnerable.

Morning is coming…. Go and wake the sleeping ones.


The hope of a radically new society, of abolishing capitalism, reveals it is far from exhausted. No, it suddenly springs from every pore. These occupations of dozens of city squares are a wind that heralds a coming storm.

This is a mood that produces actual revolutionary movements and dedicated militants of a new truth process.

Advanced, radical and discontented people who felt alone and isolated — suddenly realize they are millions. Allies emerge out of shadows, attracted by each early flame.

Networks congeal almost overnight. New thought jumps from human to human, morphing in each passage, adapting and refining. The forms of expression shake off the old and exhausted…A new generation invents its language from the messaging in the air.

Let’s understand what this is. Let’s recognize where we stand. Let’s embrace the possibilities within the new.

This break in the norm reveals what has already moved into place, and had long been building. And that revelation transforms everything — especially because we all see it together, in common, and recognize ourselves in that picture.

Be relentlessly impatient with this criminal system.

Be lovingly patient with each other — as we find the common language to act and transform.

Listen for the new. And grasp firmly to the truths that has so long been hidden and denied — but that we are now speaking from center stage.

Let’s seize the high moral ground (a precious position to hold), and never give it up. And be aware that thugs with suits and video cameras will be coming to snatch that ground away and portray us as fools, or dupes, or barbarians at the gate.

Above all: Let’s consciously go for the whole thing!

The change we want is about taking the accumulated wealth, technology, hard work, science, and connections of a complex global civilization — and finally (finally!) putting it into the service of us all, including the very least and previously powerless among us. It is about the voiceless suddenly speaking, and the wealthy suddenly becoming silent.

This is not about “budget financing” (!) but about power in the most fundamental sense. We don’t want to tax the zillionaires of finance capital — we need to rip their zombie hands from the throats of us all…. so we can breathe, perhaps for the first time in our lives. And so we can change the whole direction of the world.

The “freedom” we want is not the individual license promoted by smug Republican ideologues (the freedom of “up with me, you suck”). Instead, we need to seek the freedom of people, together, to shape their common world — an ethos of mutual caring and solidarity That is the freedom (the ability and possibility) that comes when new power of the people wrenches everything from the very few.

A revolution starts in ideas and mutual recognition. It then moves to the terrain of power.

At this moment: we can get a glimmer of how empires break, and how armies start to unravel. They don’t die on the battlefields, at least not at first — but in sudden re-allegiances of the young and awakening.

We cannot “take America back” — we never had it. But we can take over our own lives, our own planet and our common future — wrenching them away from sinister and hostile forces.

This moment of occupations is not about some concept of “America” anyway. It is global — because our society, our future and our biosphere are all global. This wave of contagious occupations and manifestations is about who will shape this beautiful blue orb as a whole. And we cannot allow that to be diminished and corrupted by slogans of America First.

The old “American dream” promised each one the ability to climb up upon the others. This new coming dream can be about a global community of mutual flourishing among human beings — about substituting community for the sale of humanity.

Let’s go for the whole thing. Let’s go for the future itself. Let’s save the only earth we have. Let’s aim to wipe out together the poverty of the many and the suffering of the abused.

Here at dawn, let’s envision the day we want, and make that revolutionary vision the center of debate, for once, and perhaps from now on.

FUCK. YEAH.

In closing, I think I'll just post this amazing video again from the other day



"But things can change—and sometimes they change very fast. Take the Civil Rights Movement in the United States: over a ten-year period, it was just a sea-change. Or take the feminist movement, which a lot of you are involved in: the changes came very fast. It went from being virtually nothing, a little nitpicking about activist groups having the women licking the stamps, and within a couple years it was a major movement, swept the country. When the time is right, things happen fast. They don’t happen without any basis—things have to have been happening for a long period. But then they can crystallize at the right time, and often become very significant."
Noam Chomsky

Occupy Wall Street Update

A couple weeks ago, Sean Hannity told an OccupyWallStreet protester on his radio show “you don’t believe in liberty, you don’t believe in freedom.” When the woman explains that her father would've died from lack of medical attention under Hannity's utopia, Hannity ignores everything she says and calls her a Marxist. Here's the exchange if you can bear it.



This video was uploaded on the internet a couple days ago. Here's a couple Marines giving their thoughts about Sean Hannity calling them anti-freedom and anti-liberty.



The woman he interviewed said that "you can merge socialism together with capitalism" (a pretty courageous thing to say on Hannity's show, if you ask me). Hannity, without bothering to inquire what this system would entail, goes on to spew that she's calling for "an elite class, like under Marx." I've heard people like Taibbi and Chomsky say that they don't go after right wing idiots because it's just too easy. I respect them more for that, but this is therapeutic for me okay?

First of all, there wasn't anything "under Marx." Karl Marx was never the leader of a country. Marx was a philosopher who lived in Germany. He never called for an "elite class." He called for the destruction of the elite class (the bourgeoisie) which develops naturally under the capitalist system. In an attempt to bash Marxism, Sean Hannity uses the exact argument that Marxists use against capitalism. Welcome to the club, comrade.



Hannity tells this woman she doesn't believe in freedom or liberty. The definition of freedom is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." The definition of liberty is "the state of being free within a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

People have much more freedom and liberty under socialism. Capitalism depends on a system called wage slavery. Many abolitionists and freed slaves felt that this was just as oppressive as actual slavery, and in fact, it's exactly what former slaveowners used to drive blacks back onto the plantations after the Civil War. In its most oppressive form, capitalism is literally slavery. All too often, this system gives you no choice but to endure backbreaking work for the bare essentials of survival. 77% of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck.



Under true socialism (not the totalitarian regimes that people claim are "socialist"), people decide for themselves how many hours they work. The amount of money you earn fluctuates depending on how many hours you choose to put in. There are no "bosses" because everyone is equal, as the Declaration of Independence states, and company decisions are made by democratic process through the workers. Workers control the means of production. This frees you from the "oppressive restrictions imposed by authority" and gives you control over your own life. The man who tells you this isn't liberty and freedom is trying to get you back onto the plantation and shut up.

Hannity isn't the only bourgeoisie trying to destroy democracy. Here's a quote from professional drug addict Rush Limbaugh:



Interesting words, coming from a fat fuck parasite whose life doesn't matter.

We all need to pay attention to Wall Street tomorrow. Tomorrow, as early as 6:00 am, Brookfield Properties will be sending in cleaning crews to Zuccotti Park. Zuccotti Park is where the protesters have been sleeping for the past month, and Brookfield Properties owns it. If the protesters aren't gone by the time the cleaning crews arrive, then the police will be sent in to forcibly remove them. Upon "being allowed to return," the protesters will no longer be able to bring equipment into the park, or tents, or water proof tarps, and there will be no lying down of any kind.

This is it. They're finally trying to break it up. The same thing is happening in Austin, and if I remember right, I think they also tried it in Wisconsin. Protesters are now in the process of cleaning up the park themselves before morning, so the crews will have no excuse to enter. This is very timely, considering there's a massive worldwide protest in solidarity with OccupyWallStreet scheduled for Saturday.

The New York chapter of the National Lawyers Guild sent Brookfield Properties a letter.

There is no basis in the law for your request for police intervention, nor have you cited any. Such police action without a prior court order would be unconstitutional and unlawful.

The opinions that make up the Occupy movement vary, but how incredibly fitting, that they send in the one entity that everyone there is unified against -- business and government intertwining to limit freedoms.

EDIT: Politico's reporting Brookfield is backing down!

Malcolm X: If You're Black, You Were Born in Prison

I Am Not Moving - A Short Film About OccupyWallStreet

Happy International Day of Solidarity with Indigenous People

Here's some classic pro-Columbus propaganda from god knows when. Really pisses me off. I noticed a few inconsistencies.

First off, this claims that white people had "learned how to build houses," while Native Americans only lived in "huts." What?

And second, everybody in 1492 knew the world was round. That had been a proven fact since the ancient world, and as far as we can tell, nobody ever truly believed that the world was flat. The reason why nobody would fund Columbus' journey is because they thought his calculations for the size of the earth were wrong, and he'd starve to death before he reached India. And they were right. If he hadn't hit the Americas, that's exactly what would've happened.

The video did get one thing right, the Indians were extremely friendly. They swam out to meet Columbus' ships when he arrived. Columbus wrote they "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone..." Columbus repaid their kindness by kidnapping and killing them. At 4:20 it shows the Indians waving to Columbus in a friendly goodbye, but I'm not sure they would've been that happy to see Columbus kidnapping their friends and family, convinced they would lead him to gold. At Hispaniola, two Indians were stabbed to death when they refused to trade as many bows and arrows as Columbus wanted. When Columbus set sail for Spain again, his prisoners froze to death on his ships.

This video neglected to mention that Columbus' only goals were acquiring slaves and gold, and "discovery" was the last thing on his mind. They didn't show the Europeans taking women and children as slaves, and forcing them into sex and labor. They didn't show the mass suicides by the Arawaks once they realized that resistance would only mean certain death. They didn't show the Arawak mothers drowning their infants to save them from the Spaniards' brutality. They didn't show Columbus saying, "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." They didn't mention that within two years of Columbus' "discovery," half of Haiti's 250,000 inhabitants were dead.

America was not a "new" world, and it was not "discovered." It had millions of people in it before the Spanish arrived to slaughter, enslave, and rape everyone. It was just as populous as Europe, and a thousand times more cultured. They treated their women with respect, valued their opinions in government, and allowed them to separate from their partners if they chose. They had democratic governments centuries before the United States was founded. They had a society that valued kindness, and encouraged taking care of one another, a sort of proto-socialism. Christopher Columbus set the foundations for the American slave trade, the most brutal system of slavery that has ever existed. The brutal and horrendous racism that resulted bleeds the nation to this day. Columbus apologists, by claiming that it's "progress" to commit genocide against some of the most advanced cultures that have ever appeared on earth, are no better than the Spaniards who put them to the sword.

Monday Youtube Post

Rage Against the Machine at the Grand Olympic Auditorium

I used to make fun of these guys and now I can't stop listening to them, what the fuck. I think this was the last performance before their breakup. Fuck, that intro gets me pumped.

Four free documentaries you need to watch if you want to understand OccupyWallStreet

I've stressed before that the goal of protests should be about swaying minds, and the protesters at Wall Street could be doing a better job at that. This article I found written by a veteran activist seems like a great instruction manual.

The great civil rights marches of the 1950s and 1960s should be studied and emulated as closely as possible. People in those marches looked as if they were assembled for a serious purpose. They wore serious clothes. They marched both joyously and solemnly. They were a picture of dignity itself. If they chanted or carried signs, the chants or signs didn’t contain language you couldn’t repeat to your grandmother.

The antiwar protests I’ve attended in New York City, by contrast, were often more like moving carnivals than protests. [This is 2006.] Costumes, banners, and behavior on display were often juvenile and raunchy. Lots of people seemed to be there to get attention, and the message they conveyed was LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT HOW CLEVER I AM, not NO IRAQ WAR.

This guy right here. This is how you should do it. Aside from being firm, knowledgeable, and respectable, he's also sporting that bitchin' Civil War hat. Fox News interviewed this guy at Wall Street, and you are never going to see it on television.



I don't know if the crowd is made up mostly of people like that, or by attention-whoring hippies. My guess is that it's pretty close to 50-50. That's a guess. About a week ago, I saw a redditor's account of the protests when he walked by it, he said he saw a couple topless chicks hoola hooping, and he was called an "asshole" because he was wearing a suit, even though he supported their cause. Assholes.

Anyway, with all these different kinds of people showing up to this same protest, it's going to be difficult trying to find one consistent message. That's because there isn't one. Liberalism is often a difficult concept for the masses to grasp, because it's not as simple or catchy as quicker phrases like "DRILL BABY DRILL" or "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE" or "FAGS BURN IN HELL." And when that kind of mindless football groupthink is brought into liberal thought, you get stupid hippies calling you an asshole for wearing a suit.



Liberalism, empathy, and humanity is difficult because it takes a bit of research. You can't summarize it in a few words, you have to go on in a lot of detail like what that guy in the Civil War hat did. If you want to hear a quick summarized reason why we're so pissed off, we're not going to be able to give it you, because you just can't generalize this stuff. The only way you can understand it fully is if you know about all the little, specific atrocities, and bring it all together into one huge picture. The reason why it's so difficult getting people on our side is because people don't want to think.

Information is power. That's where these come in. I found these links on tumblr (except Manufacturing Consent, I'm adding that myself). Here are four fantastic documentaries that everybody needs to watch, all up online. I even put the trailers up here too, aren't I awesome? Have fun.

The Corporation - Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.



Inside Job - 'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.



Why We Fight - He may have been the ultimate icon of 1950s conformity and postwar complacency, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was an iconoclast, visionary, and the Cassandra of the New World Order. Upon departing his presidency, Eisenhower issued a stern, cogent warning about the burgeoning "military industrial complex," foretelling with ominous clarity the state of the world in 2004 with its incestuous entanglement of political, corporate, and Defense Department interests.



Manufacturing Consent - This film showcases Noam Chomsky, one of America's leading linguists and political dissidents. It also illustrates his message of how government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populous. The key example for this analysis is the simultaneous events of the massive coverage of the communist atrocities of Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia and the suppression of news of the US supported Indonesian invasion and subjugation of East Timor.