Monday, April 20, 2009
Video: Change The World by Op-Critical
Brett Kimberlin from Justice Through Music checked in this weekend to let me know the music remake idea I gave him last February has now been recorded by his band Op-Critical and there is a video at YouTube. The original seed of my idea was to turn the 1971 Ten Years After song "I'd Love to Change the World (But I Don't Know What To Do)" into an encouraging and empowering anthem "I'd Love to Change the World (And I Know Just What To Do)." This is an example of a "yes, and..." response.
I think they did an excellent job on the music and lyrics, and on the video. Toward the end there are several websites displayed that all aim to get people involved in public service. Of course it is great that more people are volunteering, and in various ways building community.
When thinking about how to get involved, it is worth considering whether we are better served working through or with government created projects or instead on our own in autonomous citizen organized efforts. This may not be an all or nothing choice, though I personally prefer the latter. To follow news about such work, there is a new category called DIY in the GuvWurld News Archive. This too was created in the spirit of "yes, and..." when GuvWurld contributing editor Jane Allen recently sent me a CNN story she found inspiring:Island DIY: Kauai residents don't wait for state to repair road
Please contact me if you see an article that would fit in the DIY archive category, or can tell me about work happening in your community where people are collaborating to meet the needs government won't or can't address.
By Mallory Simon
CNN
updated 3:44 p.m. EDT, Thu April 9, 2009
(CNN) -- Their livelihood was being threatened, and they were tired of waiting for government help, so business owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free.
Polihale State Park has been closed since severe flooding destroyed an access road to the park and damaged facilities in December.
The state Department of Land and Natural Resources had estimated that the damage would cost $4 million to fix, money the agency doesn't have, according to a news release from department Chairwoman Laura Thielen.
"It would not have been open this summer, and it probably wouldn't be open next summer," said Bruce Pleas, a local surfer who helped organize the volunteers. "They said it would probably take two years. And with the way they are cutting funds, we felt like they'd never get the money to fix it."
And if the repairs weren't made, some business owners faced the possibility of having to shut down.
Ivan Slack, co-owner of Napali Kayak, said his company relies solely on revenue from kayak tours and needs the state park to be open to operate. The company jumped in and donated resources because it knew that without the repairs, Napali Kayak would be in financial trouble.
MORE...
On a related note, Naomi Klein's latest article at The Nation (and here at Huffington Post) offers a new "lexicon" for Obama supporters facing cognitive dissonance about the President's mixed performance thus far. Examples include Hopeover, Hoper coaster, Hopesick, and ultimately a more optimistic (para)phrase channeling legendary broadcaster and author Studs Terkel, Hoperoots: "It's time to stop waiting for hope to be handed down, and start pushing it up, from the hoperoots."
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/04/video-change-world-by-op-critical.html
Labels: "yes, and...", Brett Kimberlin, CNN, DIY, GuvWurld News Archive, Huffington Post, I'd Love To Change The World, Jane Allen, Naomi Klein, Studs Terkel, The Nation
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Hurricane Gustav, Shock Doctrine and "Election" Events
Hurricane Gustav bearing down on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, expected to hit Monday, has already affected the presidential candidates' campaign calculus, and completely altered the media's telling of the campaign narrative. The NY Times reports the Republican convention scheduled to start tomorrow will be held in a very scaled back form and that the storm has also deflected media attention from both Obama's Thursday night acceptance speech (YouTube) and McCain's Friday veep announcement (YouTube).
If there is destruction and chaos on the Gulf Coast, this could easily become the pretext for triggering federal martial law, as reportedly occurred locally in some places following Katrina. Only now the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive has modified succession of powers, enabling any event to trigger consolidation of all government under the executive. See Naomi Wolf's "End of America" for various historical precursors to this "echo," a repeating pattern in which the rise to absolute power comes through a series of superficially legal maneuvers, including funking up elections.
Because November's "election" event, if it is even conducted, cannot produce a conclusive and verifiable outcome, the People's huge preference must be undeniably evidenced prior to that. 84,000 were in attendance for Obama's outdoor stadium acceptance speech, which saw all tickets accounted for in a one day application process. On Friday, McCain announced the relatively unknown yet scandal-plagued Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate at a rally that couldn't fill a 10,000 seat venue. Lost in the equation are compelling visual examples of Obama's clear and commanding lead. Instead, the media perpetuate the false narrative of a close race.
Let me be clear that I endorse no candidate. I'm a fair election supporter. Though I don't think he'll be a revolutionary agent of change, if Obama has the votes to win then he should win. But first he should become outspoken about the process. Part of addressing the process, from my view, in this case, is something Obama supporters could do. I'm not usually in the position of offering advice to this seemingly massive and growing majority, but this is what I can see as the most likely way to ensure the outcome of the "election" event reflects the will of the People.
As with the juxtaposition of the numbers above, there must be constant and overwhelming collective displays of public Obama preference beyond individual expressions such as buttons, bumper stickers and lawn signs. There must be aggressive efforts to ensure the media depiction, including reporting on opinion polls, shows comparisons of candidate support are unequivocal. In this way, just having the "election" event becomes a formality. The inherent uncertainty of the unverifiable results may be neutralized without the suspense and doubt of a seemingly close race, a facade created for the power play necessary to funk up the results.
In addition, these pre-"election" displays need to directly address what will be done should the outcome be funked up. For that matter, such demonstrations of People power also ought to address rejecting the final dictatorial power grab looming over us, threatening the prospect of even having an "election" event. Velvet Revolution has launched a campaign to encourage and support candidates who raise challenges to election results. They also have a prosecute Karl Rove campaign.
Lest anyone think my suggestions or perspective are partisan, I reiterate my view that this is all simulated competition and Obama is in many ways a false alternative. That is not to say Obama and McCain are identical, but rather that Obama's talk of change is woefully inadequate at busting the myths of democracy, capitalism, free speech, free press, free markets and the rest of The Big Lie. However, while McCain appears ready to use the storm backdrop for political theater, Obama is pledging to wait and see, then organize, inspire and motivate citizen volunteers to assist in the aftermath.
And what can we expect this to look like? There is already a heavily armed military and law enforcement presence, while the war criminal enterprise Blackwater seeks to hire more mercenaries for the scene. The Department of Homeland Security (sic), FEMA (sic), and the Department of Defense (sic) will of course interfere with the command of state governors. And in a recurring theme here at WDNC lately, Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" illustrates the pattern of exploitative security and privatization responses to disasters.
Pulling that thread just a little further, the North Coast Journal recently published Shane C. Brinton's book review of "Shock Doctrine," followed by my letter to the editor based on the review (the letter was given the great title of "Fascists!"). This week's Journal includes another wonderfully titled letter "Mas Fascismo" based on my letter.
The Journal is a free weekly paper with a focus on local Humboldt County, CA events. I always enjoy seeing them publish letters from readers outside our area, and in this case from an H.M Johnson coincidentally located in Redwood Falls, Minnesota, just under 100 miles from the partly aborted Republican convention, where some blatantly fascist police tactics have been used on protesters. See Uptake.org for lots of video, and also Twin Cities Daily Planet for some additional reporting.
Between Gustav and two potential flash points to create excuses for declaring martial law, this is shaping up to be a dangerous week.
October 17, 2007
Official White House Transcript
Q Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment. He said recently that next year when he has to step down, according to the constitution, as President, he may become Prime Minister, in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there. Senator McCain --
THE PRESIDENT: I've been planning that myself. (Laughter.)
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/hurricane-gustav-shock-doctrine-and.html
Labels: false alternative, fascism, Gustav, inherent uncertainty, Katrina, martial law, McCain, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Obama, Palin, simulated competition, Velvet Revolution
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Fascists! (NC Journal Prints My LTTE re Shock Doctrine Book Review)
Friday night I posted a brief comment about a review of Naomi Klein's book, "Shock Doctrine," published in the North Coast Journal. I mentioned that the post was a variation on a letter to the editor I was about to submit, which the Journal published this week, at newsstands now but not yet online (though I predict this link will work tomorrow, and if not I'll post an update). Dig the title, including punctuation!North Coast Journal
The only thing edited from how I submitted that letter is the un-capitalized G in good Americans. The expression Good Americans has been used increasingly in the past few years, serving as another historical echo to the fabled Good Germans who failed to stop Hitler's rise. Actually, after browsing some links, I see that the phrase is not always capitalized, so perhaps I needed to put it in quotes. At any rate, good on the Journal for publishing the book review, and now the letter in response.
Mailbox
August 14, 2008
Fascists!
Editor:
Thank you for publishing Shane C. Brinton's review of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" (Aug. 7). The most important point Brinton makes is at the very end: "Klein hasn't discovered something new so much as she has explained how a very old strategy is manifesting itself in even more atrocious ways."
I had a similar thought reading Naomi Wolf's "End of America" (see Journal book review, Oct. 25, 2007), and John Perkins' "Confessions of An Economic Hitman." Historical patterns, or echoes, are revealed through myriad examples in each of these books, which all lay bare what we seem to be collectively trying to deny.
But what's that old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? Around the world and throughout time, this is what has been called fascism. I'm not discovering anything new either - just reminding my good American neighbors that it can happen here and it is.
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/fascists-nc-journal-prints-my-ltte-re.html
Labels: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, End of America, fascism, Good Americans, Good Germans, Hitler, John Perkins, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Shane C. Brinton, Shock Doctrine
Friday, August 08, 2008
North Coast Journal Reviews "Shock Doctrine"
Shane C. Brinton reviews Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" in this week's North Coast Journal. I've mentioned this book a few times here at We Do Not Consent, but since I never got around to writing a review, I'm glad to see the Journal run this. I will be sending a letter to the editor thanking them, and making a variation on just the one point I want to make here now. Brinton's review concludes:If this book has a weakness it is, perhaps, Klein's apparent belief that the "shock doctrine" is something new and that she has cracked the case. While Milton Friedman's cold, calculating brand of capitalism is especially disgusting, the use of collective trauma for political and economic gains was around long before he was. Klein hasn't discovered something new so much as she has explained how a very old strategy is manifesting itself in even more atrocious ways. Still, this is an extremely well written, enlightening book, one of the best by a left-wing author in the last decade.
Brinton is totally right on about Klein not discovering something, but rather showing us more repeating patterns, or "historical echoes," to use Naomi Wolf's term from "End of America." I think this is a very effective way to create context and aids us in re-framing the way we discuss many of America's myths, such as so-called "free markets," "free press," and "free speech." Brinton didn't go there, unfortunately, and perhaps even lazily reinforced the shallow and unnecessary paradigm of Klein as "left-wing." I wish instead he had pointed out that the current echoes playing out have always defined what has been called fascism.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/08/north-coast-journal-reviews-shock.html
Labels: End of America, fasicm, myths, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, North Coast Journal, Shane C. Brinton, Shock Doctrine
Friday, January 11, 2008
NH Chaos Represents Opportunity; Nancy Tobi Pleads For No "Recount"
Speculation represents the preponderance of verbiage about the New Hampshire primary. I can't say for certain what happened on Tuesday, or any other day in New Hampshire for that matter. But given where things stand, I would like to make the case that this chaotic time is an opportunity. Before I get to that, I will again site the BradBlog index of stories and the OpEdNews writer's campaign for detailed reporting. Meanwhile, the controversy has served as the latest shouting point dividing the blogosphere.
There is one voice that I want to offer this space to, and it is not because I necessarily agree with what she is saying. Nancy Tobi of Democracy For New Hampshire is a respected colleague who has been very generous with her time consulting the Voter Confidence Committee about hand-counting paper ballots. Nancy has posted at least two passionate statements urging that a "re-count" not be pursued. Here are excerpts, followed by my suggestions:From: No Recount Please
I don't mean to contradict Nancy here, but rather to address a matter of framing. I've said many times that we are not having elections but rather events that closely resemble elections. Similarly, this isn't as much about whether or not to have a "re-count" as it is about "counting all the ballots."
"I am telling everyone who asks to beg Paul and others to NOT request a recount. I would beg you to urge everyone to STAND DOWN from this strategy. It is a trap. Use all your influence to inform the Paul and Kucinich campaigns, which are being targeted to carry this out, to please NOT pursue the recount this year. I can not stress enough how important it is they do NOT have a recount.
We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up. Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines. A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to "prove" everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited. This is high stakes, no bullshit."
...
"No. It is time to take control. We want accountability and change. We get this NOT from a recount, but from an investigation. We need questions asked and answered, and changes made so we have a clean election in NH in November."
# # #
From: We need to eliminate secret vote counting, not a recount
"Now activists around the nation are calling for a recount. In New Hampshire the manual recount has always been held as justification for holding elections in which more than 80% of our ballots are counted in secret by private corporations.
Does this logic hold up? Will a recount rectify the problem before us?
I say no. The problem before us is that we have outsourced the most precious thing in our democracy: the counting of our votes. And in New Hampshire, we have outsourced more than 80% of our votes to a private corporation counting those votes in secret, and, as it turns out, that private corporation has a convicted drug trafficker on its executive team to boot. A recount does not solve this problem."
...
"New Hampshire already knows how to fix this problem. For the past four years, New Hampshire citizens have been asking the State to fix this problem, but the State has thus far refused. We don't need a recount now. What we need now is for the State to reconsider and implement procedural and legislative solutions to guarantee open and honest elections.
A recount won't provide any significant benefit to the cause of free and fair and open elections. Bringing back full citizen oversight and checks and balances to all New Hampshire elections is the only way to avoid having any more questionable election outcomes in the Granite State."
...
"It's pretty easy to see what happened in New Hampshire: We had an election in which 81% of our ballots were counted in secret by a private corporation, and this resulted in an outcome that is called into question.
That's what happened.
No recount is going to change this. What will change this is to get rid of corporate controlled secret vote counting in our elections."
I appreciate Nancy's point that a re-count can be self-affirming as a stamp of approval. But the really important thing to realize is that this is the very thing we should seek to take on, and in as many ways as possible. This idea that some modicum of public acceptance will settle in and endure to future elections is the very thing that we are now poised to prevent, the biggest framing opportunity this side of Busby/Bilbray.
The idea is inherent uncertainty. From before the polls even opened, we knew with certainty the outcome would be uncertain, indeterminate, unknowable, necessarily inconclusive. It is time for everyone to see this as an intentional component of the joint government/media effort to keep the public divided. There is no need for any further primary "elections" when we know now in advance of them all that they too will fail to produce unanimous acceptance of the reported results.
As I see it, it doesn't matter whether the "recount" plan goes forward or not. Either way it is just part of the same opportunity for us. Raise your hand if you've been reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine." The disorientation occurring right now, this instant, is precisely our window of opportunity to act with the ideas we have lying around. We The People are long overdue to withdraw our consent. Do not accept the results of this election. Take action to prevent local Registrars (or equivalents) from certifying results.
We can seize this moment and define the story being told. We should invoke again, if perhaps with a slight edit, the stance dozens of groups took in response to the CA-50 "election" in June 2006. From the California Election Protection Network's Voter's Resolution of No Confidence, written here at WDNC:We, The People, DO NOT CONSENT to transferring power and authority to candidates claiming victory in this illegitimate election. We will do everything within our Constitutional and Human Rights to protect and preserve possession of this power that is inalienably Ours to be given but never taken away.
Public officials have been nakedly acting against the interest of the greater good for far too long and they are now cornered. Will we continue to let them take advantage of us, to assume they have our consent?
Ray Raphael is an historian here in Humboldt County and he's written many books. I read his "First American Revolution" and learned that by 1776, much of the Revolution had already taken place. Raphael describes a resistance tactic mirrored throughout the colonies where courts were shut down by citizens who forced judges to rule by locally written charters. The alternative for the judges who wanted to continue under King's Law was often public humiliation such as tar and feathering.
I'm not sure what the modern equivalent would be but it has to involve preventing legitimacy from being conferred upon faith-based results of secretly counted "elections." My advice to Nancy is to think more about now than the future.
"If we don't take action now, we settle for nothing later. We'll settle for nothing now, and we'll settle for nothing later." --Rage Against The Machine
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/nh-chaos-represents-opportunity-nancy.html
Labels: BradBlog.com, CEPN, Democracy For New Hampshire, inherent uncertainty, Nancy Tobi, Naomi Klein, OpEdNews.com, Rage Against The Machine, Ray Raphael, Shock Doctrine
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Alex Jones Interviews Naomi Wolf, Blows Her Mind
On Thursday I posted a bunch of links to interviews, lectures and articles by author Naomi Wolf, whose book End of America I've been writing and talking about a lot. Last night I came across an interview Wolf gave on Thursday to radio talk host Alex Jones. Neither of them had to convince the other of anything, and it was amazing to hear them sharing information the other didn't know. There was mutual admiration and respect and Wolf will give Jones a longer interview in the near future.
Meanwhile, the historical echoes and direct connections between the Bush family and the Nazis grow ever more concrete as Jones talks about visiting the National Archive, the official treasure trove of our nation's forgotten memories. If you didn't click on any of the links I provided the other day, listen to this interview. And if you did click any of them the other day, still listen to this interview.
This Jones/Wolf interview came to my attention via this thread at Democratic Underground. Commenter tom_paine responded, seemingly in frustration, that "99% of the American People see nothing" even as this info becomes increasingly abundant and clear. It was obvious to me he was exaggerating, prompting my reply:There are way more of us who are awake than we give ourselves credit for. It is not really a quantifiable figure. We each have a sense of it, and I suspect that for most of us it can even vary over time, influenced by circumstances. So for example, someone feeling cut off from like-minded people wanting change, or someone who is burned out from activism that hasn't produced change, or someone who goes to a new community and experiences an intense disconnect with people; any of these situations could understandably tilt a person a little towards the pessimistic side.
On the other hand, today Peter B. Collins did his syndicated talk radio show live in my town (.mp3 archive). I work with a group called the Voter Confidence Committee and we had a table in the lobby of the theater. Two of us were guests on the show for the whole final hour. Afterwards, I drove to the community center in the next town and the Peace and Justice Center was having its annual holiday dinner. It was held for the first time this year in an enormous gymnasium, having outgrown the venue of the past several years. I'm buzzing so hard from the good vibes of today. That might tilt me a little towards the optimistic, but I won't claim there is 99% of us who are awake and ready for the revolution.
For whatever it is worth, I think we have passed the turning point and the numbers are on our side. Our challenge, all of us in this country, is to learn to be better community organizers. Think global, act local. This is how we build the peaceful revolution.
At the Redwood Peace and Justice Center dinner later in the evening, I also at long last met Marcy Burstiner, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at Humboldt State University who also writes the Media Maven column for the North Coast Journal. Her column began last year on my suggestion that local election coverage be compared across various local media, as viewed through the dozens of articles assembled in my scrapbook. She never talked to me prior to writing her first column and for reasons that no longer matter I never contacted her about the issues I had with that column.
Much later, and actually quite recently, I did begin to correspond with her by e-mail and felt frustrated that she declined or refused to make the connection between election conditions that inherently guarantee uncertain results and the irresponsibility (corrupt complicity, really) of media that print such outcomes as if they are fact. When we were introduced last night, the first thing she said to me was that she liked my OpEd in Thursday's Eureka Reporter. Tom Pinto had introduced us and the three of us talked for several minutes after that. I wasn't totally surprised when Marcy said she believes our elections are a "sham." But I also didn't get the opportunity I was looking for to ask her to reconcile this with the dilemma above. A little more ruthless honesty is in order here.
One really interesting thing that Marcy brought up last night was her expectation that something major was about to happen with the Eureka Reporter this Sunday, tomorrow. Each of us agreed there had recently been some unsettling signs for the paper, including eliminating distribution to some outlying areas, changing the paper used for printing, and the addition of a new editorial page editor named Peter Hannaford.
I shared something then that I haven't blogged before. I told Tom and Marcy that when Stephanie West from the Reporter called me to confirm I wrote the OpEd that ran on Thursday, she said that the decision to print it was now up to Peter Hannaford. I asked if he was the one responsible for the sharp change in tone in the paper's recent editorials. Yes, said Stephanie. I then said that I was compelled to offer her the feedback that his writing is juvenile and lowers the level of discourse this community is accustomed to as a result of having so many print publications. Here are three (one, two, three) examples.
Something about that third example really stuck in my head. I was astounded at the absurdity of referring to the "MoveOn.org-Code Pink wing of the Democratic Party." I am not a member of either group, having abandoned MoveOn long ago when it was obviously not effective at creating the real change I seek. If you ask any member of either group whether they feel they are having an influence on the Democrats, I am certain a vast majority will express frustration that the answer is clearly no. This frustration is certainly the prevailing attitude across the country, not just in these two groups. There is no evidence to indicate the Democrats have become beholden to these two groups in any way, especially given the repeated commitment to funding war profiteering, big pharma, etc. So in essence, there is no such thing as the "MoveOn.org-Code Ping wing of the Democratic party", just as there is no such thing as Islamofascism.
So what is this all about? I've been over it a few times. Harken back to this GuvWurld blog post, We Are Being Set Up: The Manchurian Nation (which also landed in my book, We Do Not Consent (free .pdf)). This talks about how Homeland Security and media propaganda combine to brand protest as treason, and dissenters as terrorists. In End of America, Wolf lists this as step nine of ten taken by all dictatorial regimes closing down open societies. How transparent and obvious has this become in America today? This YouTube video of CNN footage from Wednesday night features talking head Campbell Brown referring to MoveOn.org as "American insurgents."
I mentioned on Thursday that I am currently reading Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. This YouTube video is author Naomi Klein interviewed by Keith Olbermann on Thursday night. Her thesis:"So there's three kinds of shocks in the Shock Doctrine. The shock of a crisis, then an economic shock therapy program, and then, if people don't behave, a third shock, which is the shock of torture."
Like Wolf, Klein talks about understanding oft-repeated patterns, showing multiple examples of this three shock sequence. Both women believe these patterns are predictive. I say they are right, but the things being "predicted" are as much in the present as in the future.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/alex-jones-interviews-naomi-wolf-blows.html
Labels: Alex Jones, End of America, Eureka Reporter, Keith Olbermann, Manchuran Nation, Marcy Burstiner, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Peter Hannaford, Shock Doctrine, Stephanie West, Tom Pinto
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Some things I've been meaning to tell you...
My North Coast Journal book review of Naomi Wolf's "End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the references I see out there. I had promised to post a bunch of links and I regret the delay. I urge you to listen closely to what she is saying. This list is by no means comprehensive.
Lecture at University of Washington, 10/11/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Lecture in Baltimore, MD, 11/7/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h117oU65fIc
On Stephen Colbert's show:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63860/
Mind Over Matters radio interview 10/22/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
Last Sunday Wolf penned an OpEd for the Washington Post. She periodically posts to Huffington Post. She gave a good interview to BuzzFlash back in September. And from another good one last week with Don Hazen at AlterNet:DH: Well there's a lot of activity currently in terms of the Justice Department aimed at purging voters ... reducing voter rolls ... that's an ongoing battle to try to keep voters eligible. Conservatives are always trying to reduce the electorate. By the way, are you familiar with Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism?
Where to begin to comment? First of all, I am now reading the Naomi Klein book (Shock Doctine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) referenced above and I recommend it as strongly as I have with Wolf's book. Earlier this year I read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. As I make my way through Klein's book I am recognizing a tight nexus between all three books. Just as Wolf traces historical echoes of dictatorships, parallels common to the story of all authoritarians closing down open societies, Klein takes the same regimes and angles in on the economic shock therapy typically used to pave the way down a path shepherded by Perkins the hit man, in other words perpetual servitude to the American empire.
NW: Yes, and it all makes a lot of sense. And its certainly historically true. We're in this post-9/11 period when there is a lot of potential for these kind of "shock therapy" things to happen, but virtually everything ... has happened previously in history in patterns. It's just the blueprint. It's not rocket science.
I could tell last fall when a law was passed expanding the definition of terrorists to include animal rights activists, that people who look more like you and me would start to be called terrorists, which is a classic tactic in what I call a fascist expansion.
DH: Don't look at me -- I'm not a vegetarian. Just kidding.
NW: (Laughs) Right. It's also predictive ... according to the blueprint, that the state starts to torture people that most of us don't identity with, because they're brown, Muslim, people on an island. They're called an enemy.
That there will be a progressive blurring of the line, and six months, two years later, you're going to see it spread to others. ... According to the blueprint, we're right on schedule that this kid recently got tasered in Florida, I gather, for asking questions.
Notice above that Wolf says "blurring of the line." To me, this reinforces and builds upon the notion of inherent uncertainty, which is often created by falsely balanced contradictions or completely unverifiable claims. The added uncertainty that Wolf is forecasting is a more individual consideration. It amounts to a People who live with a nagging fear - am I next?
It is also important that Wolf invokes a blueprint for the onset of fascism. Even more important is her statement that it is predictive. In the BuzzFlash interview, she rhetorically asks:"...if it is reasonable to assume we will have fair, transparent elections. Given all these violations of these sacred tenets of democracy, do you really think that George Bush is going to say, fourteen months from now, that the great pageant of democracy -- a fair election -- must proceed without intervention or corruption? That the people have spoken, the people's will be done? Is that really common sense?"
This position she arrives at is the same one I've held for seven years, though we get there in different ways. She is saying that she expects there will be elections. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the prospect she may be wrong, but I'm able to accept the premise. Because what she says about upcoming elections is that we know they won't be decided legitimately. With even the first draft of the Voter Confidence Resolution (originally called No Confidence Resolution), on April 10, 2004, I was making the same predictive statement, that there would be no basis for confidence in the results of elections held under current conditions.
There is something a bit weird about predictions. Nobody reading these words would consider gazing into a crystal ball to be a legitimate means of news gathering. So how can a best-selling author, on a non-stop book tour, get away with making predictions? Consider that she is not making a guess. She is not even talking about the future. She is describing things that are already happening, but which many people just don't see. This too is one of the echoes described in End of America. You may know the expression "good Germans," referring to the dazed and confused populace that let Nazism rise to power. Sadly, yet predictably, many "good Americans" cannot or will not recognize fascism when they see it.
Come to think of it, I have made some other predictive statements, particularly about the economic and environmental crashes inevitably looming on the horizon. There simply is no argument to be made that our course on either front meets any definition of sustainable. Thus, this too is a prediction of the present. Many of us are certain the collapse has already begun. Here we are only talking about how long it will take and what degree of personal uncertainty must become the norm before what is now clearly visible to some becomes apparent to all.
I'm late to the show for commenting on the privileged impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich a few weeks ago, when he attempted to force a floor vote in the House of Representatives. However, the stray notes I made at the time take us back to one more predictive statement:Republicans as a rule are obstructionist in this Congress. Yesterday they had many possible ways to obstruct, any of which would alter the course away from the only thing worth describing as a goal, which is a successful vote to impeach.
With a few weeks gone by now, I don't really see that Kucinich's welcome bravado did anything to shift control of the impeachment issue. Worth noting, though, is this statement by New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall. While I don't consider her endorsement of Kucinich's presidential candidacy to be too relevant, she goes much further by introducing her own impeachment resolution in the NH House.
Republicans portray themselves as victims, even as they bully the world. To prolong impeachment discussions, inwardly believing they are benign, creates a new, manageable internal threat. As Wolf notes in End of America, fascist dictators always evoke threats, both internal and external.
In this year's Reflections on Independence (Vol. 5), I pointed out that there is no precedent for expecting this admin to allow itself to be held accountable. It will never allow impeachment to proceed through all its machinations. However, whatever method of preempting impeachment one may imagine, it will not be unleashed until deemed necessary or opportunistically ideal. By prolonging and managing the pace of the impeachment discussion the admin increases its control over when that point of perceived necessity arrives.
At least two things are significant about this. First, while it may take a few months, NH law guarantees this resolution will get a full floor vote - it cannot be killed in committee. The other important part of this development is that Hall's resolution was drafted primarily by Paul Lehto, election protection attorney, co-founder of psephos-us.org, and the author of the Foreword to my book, We Do Not Consent (free .pdf download). The genius Lehto displays here is connecting the necessity of impeachment with the absolute destruction of legitimate elections. The final paragraph of the resolution:That, for directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, for suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for instituting debates and doubts about the true nature of elections, all against the will and consent of local voters affected, and forced through threats of litigation, the actions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to do the opposite of securing and guaranteeing the right of the people to alter or abolish their government, being a violation of an inalienable right, and an immediate threat to Liberty, is good cause for impeachment to be immediately granted.
Of the dozens if not hundreds of good causes for impeachment, this one may be the oldest chronologically if we go back to November and December 2000.
One last thing I've been meaning to tell you. A few weeks ago there were demonstrations of the US-approved torture tactic called waterboarding. This YouTube video was filmed in front of a Justice Department building, and this footage was taken by Code Pink members confronting CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein in front of CNN studios in D.C. This could only be done with volunteers willing to endure the pain and risk of death. It is totally surreal. Imagine you're a cop. On an ordinary day you might observe a group carrying signs and singing songs ("mostly say hooray for our side!"). You might see people lay down in the street for a "die-in." But what do you do when you see somebody conducting waterboarding, even if on a willing subject?
Can an ordinary beat cop bring you up on war crimes charges?
How does the sacrifice of allowing oneself to be waterboarded compare to the sacrifice of being arrested for torture, charges exactly applicable to Bush, Cheney, etc.
Is a demonstration of torture, even if on a willing victim, consistent with the principles of non-violence? I don't have an answer for this but imagine it could be quite debatable. Comments welcome.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-things-ive-been-meaning-to-tell.html
Labels: Betty Hall, Code Pink, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Dennis Kucinich, End of America, impeachment, Jon Perkins, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Paul Lehto, Shock Doctrine, waterboarding
