Terrorizing Dissent

I’ve just been reading Terrorising Dissent: the Neoliberal ‘Anti-terrorist’ Strategy. In light of the BuShite’s seizure and consolidation of power in the US this week, articles like this will become more and more important. From the abstract:

How does political protest become terrorism? Answer: whenever governments say that it is. They increasingly do so because capitalism has no alternative to neoliberal globalization and new enclosures. This agenda can be imposed only by terrorizing dissent — in the name of protecting the public from terrorism, of course. In this way, ‘counter-terrorism’ is redefining or even replacing politics. As this article argues, effective resistance becomes inseparable from a struggle against new enclosures and for new commons.

This notion that anyone who is against the aggressive tactics of the neocons will be labelled a Terrorist™ is the sine qua non of understanding the BuShite worldview. “You’re either with us, or you’re with The Terrorists™” is the embodiment of this policy; it means that there can be no resistance or disagreement with BuShite politics. Look at the logic of the BuShites:

  • They say that The Terrorists™ are Evil™, and need to be defeated, destroyed, and killed through violent means, up to and including outright warfare.
  • They also say that if you are not with them, then you are with The Terrorists™.
  • Therefore, if you disagree with the BuShites, you need to be defeated, destroyed, and killed through violent means, up to and including outright warfare.

This is simple logic, and it exposes the dangers of the BuShite policy in a most elementary way. Nothing is open to negotiation. Nothing is open to discussion. The BuShites will not admit to even the possibility that they are wrong, and they are in command of the largest military machine in the history of the planet. Does anyone else find this worrisome? Is it any wonder that rational, sane political dialogue in this country is all but impossible?

Apparently, the 59 million people who allegedly Voted™ for Bush don’t see this. What concerns me is that, as I said, this is elementary logic. What does that say about the American people, or at least 59 million (about 20%…hardly the majority mandate claimed by the BuShites) of them? I’m not sure I can use “us,” even though I am part of the American people. The American people are deeply divided right now, with tens of millions of people on each “side.” If this were any country other than the richest, most comfortable country in the world, I believe we’d already be in a civil war.

Perhaps we are, with The BuShites shaping it as Good Americans™ vs. The Terrorists™.

an important voice on the election

Greg Palast has been on top of election fraud since the 2000 election. He has a new article out, called Kerry won … In the article, he outlines the now-familiar pattern of voter fraud, specifically in Ohio and New Mexico. But perhaps the most salient observation is the last paragraph:

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure — a second time — to count all the votes, that won’t be necessary. My country has left me.

Brilliant. I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t considered leaving the country since the election. The European Union is looking particularly good; this interview suggests that the EU is becoming the next superpower, being a larger market with a larger population than the US. Additionally, they tend to spend their government funds on social services rather than an ultra-high military budget, thus providing some stability. I really believe that America’s days as a superpower — let alone the only superpower — are numbered.

disenfranchised

Well, I voted yesterday. Kerry took Maine. Cobb got less than 1%.

I voted, but I feel disenfranchised. The establishment would tell me that I’m contradicting myself here. After all, I voted; by definition my voice was counted.

However, voting has nothing to do with my voice, unless I learn to say “Bush” or “Kerry”. My own ideas and desires for an American political reality were nowhere on any ballot I saw, with the possible exception of several Green candidates for local offices (they averaged about 10% of the vote, except for John Eder, who was re-elected despite some pathetic attempt at Gerrymandering by the Democrats and Republicans).

This can be nothing but Disenfranchisement. My voice is not among those who will be heard.

voting…. BOO!

Well, it’s only appropriate that today, on Halloween, I discuss voting. Voting this year is, first of all, scary as hell. Secondly, it involves people dressing up as something they are not, a practice all-too-familiar to anyone who pays any attention whatsoever to candidates and their empty promises to appease would-be voters. Third, this election involves both tricks for most of us (ie, everyone other than the economic elite) and treats for the candidates and the people they really represent (ie, the economic elite).

Having said that, I think that Noam Chomsky has the most poignant election comments yet, in his interview with Amy Goodman where he discusses his position on this election:

I took exactly the position I took in 2000, namely, the election is a marginal affair, it should not distract us from the serious work of changing the society, and the culture and the institutions, creating a democratic culture. That’s what you work on. You can’t ignore the election. It’s there. But it’s designed as a method of essentially marginalizing the population. There’s a huge propaganda campaign to get people to focus on these personalized extravaganzas, and make them think “That’s politics.” Well, it isn’t. That’s a marginal part of politics, and here, a very marginal part. So the main thing is keep on with your work. You can’t ignore it. You should spend five minutes, maybe, thinking about what you should do. In that five minute, you should recognize there is some difference between the two groups contending for power, and one of them happens to be really extremist, and very dangerous, and it’s already caused plenty of trouble and could cause plenty more. The other is bad, but less extremist and less dangerous. So in that five minutes that you devote to the topic, you should come to the rational conclusion, if it’s a swing state, keep the worst guys out. If it’s another state, do what you feel like. It’s the same thing I said in 2000 during the five minutes of time I spent on it.

My own thinking is similar. My ultimate belief is that The System™ is broken, and voting cannot change that given the bipolar political culture in america. For my own ideals about what good government would be to come to pass, a revolution is required. I know, I know. Be careful what you ask for. But given this, it makes sense for me to look at voting from a “damage control” perspective, and from this perspective, a vote for Kerry would most likely reduce the amount of damage done.

Bottom line, this is going to be an interesting election and aftermath. After the 2000 electile dysfunction, there is precedent for the Republicans to steal votes and commit massive, systematic fraud. In 2000, no one stood up to challenge them; I am of course reminded of the footage of Gore joking in the Senate floor while he hands power over to the Republicans from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 movie.

This year, the Democrats are paying attention, and the potential for public outrage over election fraud is huge. The “anyone but Bush” crowd is motivated primarily by fear, and electoral fraud would stoke those fires of fear more than just about anything. But the Republicans are more entrenched, and because of the Democratic cowardice in 2000 they have legal precedent on their side. This country is more and more polarized, and the potential for near-civil-war conditions is huge.

I hope this works out with minimal violence. The next few days–and months–are going to be interesting.

On another note, I am completely suspicious of polls that are out. I do see quite a few Bush/Cheney signs, but literally NO ONE I hang out with is a Bush supporter. Believe me, I’ve tried to find one, because I am genuinely curious as to how anyone who uses their brain can support Bush. I really want to ask that question to a Bush supporter: “how can you support this guy?” And I haven’t been able to ask that of anyone.

So when I hear polls that say the race is about even, I am utterly suspicious. How are we to know that the “winner” of the election is really the winner? Just because CNN says so?

Bottom line, it’s impossible to tell.

discussing the commons

The concept of the commons is one that needs to be discussed more often in political dialogue. I was quite pleased to see a forum in London during the European Social Forum. The forum, Life Despite Capitalism, “is a project/forum to approach the question of alternatives to capitalism in the here and now not ‘after capitalism’ has been abolished. This means a capacity to do and relate to each other, in ways rooted in dignity, respect and common access to resources.”

I was also pleased to see that my Virtual Enclosures article is one of the recommended readings for one of the panels. It’s always good to know that my work is rippling outward and that others see the value of discussion around commons. As I wrote in the conclusion of the article:

The virtual commons, I have argued, is a crucial element in the process of “globalizing resistance.” Empire is, of course, resisting this process; in response they are imposing the virtual enclosures. Information infrastructure is a key battleground in the struggle against neoliberalism, and even today the dominance of proprietary software and closed standards in fortifying the virtual enclosures is troubling. But there is an alternative. Globalized resistance can still organize itself within the virtual commons, strengthening both itself and the commons the more it is used and its fundamental values as a commons (no one owns it, everyone can use it, anyone can improve it) are embraced, celebrated, and foregrounded in the dialogue within globalized resistance.

Mixerman and Bitch Slap, part 2

Heh. I’ve written before about The Daily Adventures of Mixerman, a previously online journal about a recording engineer’s quest to record a major label bidding war band, that he dubbed “Bitch Slap.” It’s very funny, I suggest you go read it, or maybe even order the book that it became.

But anyway, he has begun writing part 2 after all this time. I just wanted to record that for posterity. Reading now.

Double Standards: Bill Clinton and the “Anybody But Bush” Movement

This is a very insightful article, one that I think everyone voting for Kerry — or even thinking about voting for Kerry — should read. From the opening paragraph:

If the democrats take power this November they will probably continue the same policies as Bush. We know this because Clinton did basically the same thing when he was in office. To think otherwise is to ignore history and the democrat’s records. The “Anybody but Bush” (ABB) movement is founded on a basically irrational hatred of Bush that completely ignores the record of the democrats the last time they were in power. The ABB movement practices a double standard: when republicans do something it’s wrong but when democrats do the same thing it’s okay (or didn’t happen at all). In party politics it is always the other party’s fault, never the system’s fault. If a democrat were in office and implemented the same policies Bush has most of the ABBers would support him. We know this because Clinton implemented many of the same policies ABBers criticize Bush for yet they didn’t develop the same kind of hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush. Most outright supported Clinton and the minority who didn’t support him did not develop the kind of irrational hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.

In some ways, it is a restatement of the Naderesque maxim that there is little or no difference between the 2 major parties. But this article takes a look at history. In 1992, when Clinton took the White House, very little changed. The value of this article is that it is a laundry list of ways in which nothing changed.

I’m still going back and forth on the vote, it will most likely be a game time decision for me. But I keep returning to the fact that a vote for Kerry is about as inauthentic as I can be in terms of voting.

1992 was the first election where I was truly excited by the results. When Clinton won, I had a real sense of “now things can change.” Even in 1996, when Dole faded out like the lingering overhang of a post-bean-burrito fart, I had the feeling that Clinton would save the best for last now that he didn’t have to worry about getting re-elected. Silly me. One disappearing cigar and a stain on a blue dress later, Clinton was done in.

Bottom line: The System™ is broken, and any attempt to fix things from within The System™ is not addressing the problem and will therefore fail.

So, like, viva la revolucion or something.

Though the back of my head says “be careful what you ask for…”