 |
| (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Read it for yourself! Then research it! 9-11 Finding the Truth.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
ANDarchy?
 |
| The black flag, a traditional anarchist symbol. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Anarchy 101
What is “anarchism”? What is “anarchy”? Who are “anarchists”?Anarchism is an idea about the best way to live. Anarchy is a way of living.
Anarchism is the idea that government (the state) is unnecessary and harmful. Anarchy is society without government. Anarchists are people who believe in anarchism and desire to live in anarchy as all our ancestors once did. People who believe in government (such as liberals, conservatives, socialists and fascists) are known as “statists.”
It might sound like anarchism is purely negative — that it’s just against something. Actually, anarchists have many positive ideas about life in a stateless society. But, unlike Marxists, liberals and conservatives, they don’t offer a blueprint.
Aren’t anarchists bomb-throwers?No — at least not compared to, say the United States Government, which drops more bombs every day on Iraq than anarchists have thrown in the almost 150 years they have been a political movement. Why do we never hear of “bomb-throwing Presidents”? Does it matter if bombs are delivered horizontally by anarchists rather than vertically by the U.S. Government?
Anarchists have been active for many years and in many countries, under autocratic as well as democratic governments. Sometimes, especially under conditions of severe repression, some anarchists have thrown bombs. But that has been the exception. The “bomb-throwing anarchist” stereotype was concocted by politicians and journalists in the late 19th century, and they still won’t let go of it, but even back then it was a gross exaggeration.
Has there ever been an anarchist society that worked?Yes, many thousands of them. For their first million years or more, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers in small bands of equals, without hierarchy or authority. These are our ancestors. Anarchist societies must have been successful, otherwise none of us would be here. The state is only a few thousand years old, and it has taken that long for it to subdue the last anarchist societies, such as the San (Bushmen), the Pygmies and the Australian aborigines.
But we can’t go back to that way of life.Nearly all anarchists would agree. But it’s still an eye-opener, even for anarchists, to study these societies, and perhaps to pick up some ideas on how a completely voluntary, highly individualistic, yet cooperative society might work. To take just one example, anarchist foragers and tribesmen often have highly effective methods of conflict resolution including mediation and nonbinding arbitration. Their methods work better than our legal system because family, friends and neighbors of the disputants encourage disputants to agree, helped by sympathetic and trustworthy go-betweens, to find some reasonable resolution of the problem. In the 1970s and 1980s, academic supposed experts tried to transplant some of these methods into the American legal system. Naturally the transplants withered and died, because they only live in a free society.
Anarchists are naïve: they think human nature is essentially good.Not so. It’s true that anarchists reject ideas of innate depravity or Original Sin. Those are religious ideas which most people no longer believe in. But anarchists don’t usually believe that human nature is essentially good either. They take people as they are. Human beings aren’t “essentially” anything. We who live under capitalism and its ally, the state, are just people who have never had a chance to be everything we can be.
Although anarchists often make moral appeals to the best in people, just as often they appeal to enlightened self-interest. Anarchism is not a doctrine of self-sacrifice, although anarchists have fought and died for what they believe in. Anarchists believe that the carrying-out of their basic idea would mean a better life for almost everyone.
How can you trust people not to victimize each other without the state to control crime?If you can’t trust ordinary people not to victimize each other, how can you trust the state not to victimize us all? Are the people who get into power so unselfish, so dedicated, so superior to the ones they rule? The more you distrust your fellows, the more reason there is for you to become an anarchist. Under anarchy, power is reduced and spread around. Everybody has some, but nobody has very much. Under the state, power is concentrated, and most people have none, really. Which kind of power would you like to go up against?
But — let’s get real — what would happen if there were no police?As anarchist Allen Thornton observes, “Police aren’t in the protection business; they’re in the revenge business.” Forget about Batman driving around interrupting crimes in progress. Police patrol does not prevent crime or catch criminals. When police patrol was discontinued secretly and selectively in Kansas City neighborhoods, the crime rate stayed the same. Other research likewise finds that detective work, crime labs, etc. have no effect on the crime rate. But when neighbors get together to watch over each other and warn off would-be criminals, criminals try another neighborhood which is protected only by the police. The criminals know that they are in little danger there.
But the modern state is deeply involved in the regulation of everyday life. Almost every activity has some sort of state connection.That’s true — but when you think about it, everyday life is almost entirely anarchist. Rarely does one encounter a policeman, unless he is writing you a traffic ticket for speeding. Voluntary arrangements and understandings prevail almost everywhere. As anarchist Rudolph Rocker wrote: “The fact is that even under the worst despotism most of man’s personal relations with his fellows are arranged by free agreement and solidaric cooperation, without which social life would not be possible at all.”
Family life, buying and selling, friendship, worship, sex, and leisure are anarchist. Even in the workplace, which many anarchists consider to be as coercive as the state, workers notoriously cooperate, independent of the boss, both to minimize work and to get it done. Some people say anarchy doesn’t work. But it’s almost the only thing that does! The state rests, uneasily, on a foundation of anarchy, and so does the economy.
Culture?Anarchism has always attracted generous and creative spirits who have enriched our culture. Anarchist poets include Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Blake, Arthur Rimbaud, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. American anarchist essayists include Henry David Thoreau and, in the 20th century, the Catholic anarchist Dorothy Day, Paul Goodman, and Alex Comfort (author of The Joy of Sex). Anarchist scholars include the linguist Noam Chomsky, the historian Howard Zinn, and the anthropologists A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Pierre Clastres. Anarchist literary figures are way too numerous to list but include Leo Tolstoy, Oscar Wilde, and Mary Shelley (author of Frankenstein). Anarchist painters include Gustav Courbet, Georges Seurat, Camille Pissarro, and Jackson Pollock. Other creative anarchists include such musicians as John Cage, John Lennon, the band CRASS, etc.
Supposing you’re right, that anarchy is a better way to live than what we have now, how can we possibly overthrow the state if it’s as powerful and oppressive as you say it is?Anarchists have always thought about this question. They have no single, simple answer. In Spain, where there were one million anarchists in 1936 when the military attempted a coup, they fought the Fascists at the front at the same time that they supported workers in taking over the factories, and the peasants in forming collectives on the land. Anarchists did the same thing in the Ukraine in 1918–1920, where they had to fight both the Czarists and the Communists. But that’s not how we will bring down the system in the world of the 21st century.
Consider the revolutions that overthrew Communism in Eastern Europe. There was some violence and death involved, more in some countries than in others. But what brought down the politicians, bureaucrats and generals — the same enemy we face — was most of the population just refusing to work or do anything else to keep a rotten system going. What were the commissars in Moscow or Warsaw to do, drop nuclear weapons on themselves? Exterminate the workers that they were living off?
Most anarchists have long believed that what they call a general strike could play a large part in crumbling the state. That is, a collective refusal to work.
If you’re against all government, you must be against democracy.If democracy means that people control their own lives, then all anarchists would be, as American anarchist Benjamin Tucker called them, “unterrified Jeffersonian democrats” — they would be the only true democrats. But that’s not what democracy really is. In real life, a part of the people (in America, almost always a minority of the people) elect a handful of politicians who control our lives by passing laws and using unelected bureaucrats and police to enforce them whether the majority want it or not.
As the French philosopher Rousseau (not an anarchist) once wrote, in a democracy, people are only free at the moment they vote, the rest of the time they are government slaves. The politicians in office and the bureaucrats are usually under the powerful influence of big business and often other special interest groups. Everyone knows this. But some people keep silent because they are getting benefits from the powerholders. Many others keep silent because they know that protesting does no good and they might be called “extremists” or even “anarchists” (!) if they tell it like it is. Some democracy!
Well, if you don’t elect officials to make the decisions, who does make them? You can’t tell me that everybody can do as he personally pleases without regard for others.Anarchists have many ideas about how decisions would be made in a truly voluntary and cooperative society. Most anarchists believe that such a society must be based on local communities small enough for people know each other, or people at least would share ties of family, friendship, opinions or interests with almost everybody else. And because this is a local community, people also share common knowledge of their community and its environment. They know that they will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike politicians or bureaucrats, who decide for other people.
Anarchists believe that decisions should always be made at the smallest possible level. Every decision which individuals can make for themselves, without interfering with anybody else’s decisions for themselves, they should make for themselves. Every decision made in small groups (such as the family, religious congregations, co-workers, etc.) is again theirs to make as far as it doesn’t interfere with others. Decisions with significant wider impact, if anyone is concerned about them, would go to an occasional face-to-face community assembly.
The community assembly, however, is not a legislature. No one is elected. Anyone may attend. People speak for themselves. But as they speak about specific issues, they are very aware that for them, winning is not, as it was for football coach Vince Lombardi, “the only thing.” They want everyone to win. They value fellowship with their neighbors. They try, first, to reduce misunderstanding and clarify the issue. Often that’s enough to produce agreement. If that’s not enough, they work for a compromise. Very often they accomplish it. If not, the assembly may put off the issue, if it’s something that doesn’t require an immediate decision, so the entire community can reflect on and discuss the matter prior to another meeting. If that fails, the community will explore whether there’s a way the majority and minority can temporarily separate, each carrying out its preference.
If people still have irreconcilable differences about the issue, the minority has two choices. It can go along with the majority this time, because community harmony is more important than the issue. Maybe the majority can conciliate the minority with a decision about something else. If all else fails, and if the issue is so important to the minority, it may separate to form a separate community, just as various American states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Utah, West Virginia, etc.) have done. If their secession isn’t an argument against statism, then it isn’t an argument against anarchy. That’s not a failure for anarchy, because the new community will recreate anarchy. Anarchy isn’t a perfect system — it’s just better than all the others.
We can’t satisfy all our needs or wants at the local level.Maybe not all of them, but there’s evidence from archaeology of long-distance trade, over hundreds or even thousands of miles, in anarchist, prehistoric Europe. Anarchist primitive societies visited by anthropologists in the 20th century, such as the San (Bushmen) hunter-gatherers and the tribal Trobriand Islanders, conducted such trade between individual “trade-partners.” Practical anarchy has never depended on total local self-sufficiency. But many modern anarchists have urged that communities, and regions, should be as self-sufficient as possible, so as not to depend on distant, impersonal outsiders for necessities. Even with modern technology, which was often designed specifically to enlarge commercial markets by breaking down self-sufficiency, much more local self-sufficiency is possible than governments and corporations want us to know.
One definition of “anarchy” is chaos. Isn’t that what anarchy would be — chaos?Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, wrote that “liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Anarchist order is superior to state-enforced order because it is not a system of coercive laws, it is simply how communities of people who know each other decide how to live together. Anarchist order is based on common consent and common sense.
When was the philosophy of anarchism formulated?Some anarchists think that anarchist ideas were expressed by Diogenes the Cynic in ancient Greece, by Lao Tse in ancient China, and by certain medieval mystics and also during the 17th century English Civil War. But modern anarchism began with William Godwin’s Political Justice published in England in 1793. It was revived in France by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the 1840s (What Is Property?). He inspired an anarchist movement among French workers. Max Stirner in The Ego and His Own (1844) defined the enlightened egoism which is a basic anarchist value. An American, Josiah Warren, independently arrived at similar ideas at the same time and influenced the large-scale movement at the time to found utopian communities. Anarchist ideas were developed further by the great Russian revolutionary Michael Bakunin and by the respected Russian scholar Peter Kropotkin. Anarchists hope that their ideas continue to develop in a changing world.
This revolutionary stuff sounds a lot like Communism, which nobody wants.Anarchists and Marxists have been enemies since the 1860s. Although they have sometimes cooperated against common enemies like the Czarists during the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Fascists during the Spanish Civil War, the Communists have always betrayed the anarchists. From Karl Marx to Joseph Stalin, Marxists have denounced anarchism.
Some anarchists, followers of Kropotkin, call themselves “communists” — not Communists. But they contrast their free communism, arising from below — the voluntary pooling of land, facilities and labor in local communities where people know each other — to a Communism imposed by force by the state, nationalizing land and productive facilities, denying all local autonomy, and reducing workers to state employees. How could the two systems be more different?
Anarchists welcomed and in fact participated in the fall of European Communism. Some foreign anarchists had been assisting Eastern Bloc dissidents — as the U.S. Government had not — for many years. Anarchists are now active in all the former Communist countries.
The Communist collapse certainly did discredit much of the American left, but not the anarchists, many of whom do not consider themselves leftists anyway. Anarchists were around before Marxism and we are still around after it.
Don’t anarchists advocate violence?Anarchists aren’t nearly as violent as Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Those people only seem to be nonviolent because they use the state to do their dirty work — to be violent for them. But violence is violence. Wearing a uniform or waving a flag does not change that. The state is violent by definition. Without violence against our anarchist ancestors — hunter-gatherers and farmers — there would be no states today. Some anarchists advocate violence — but all states engage in violence every day.
Some anarchists, in the tradition of Tolstoy, are pacifist and nonviolent on principle. A relatively small number of anarchists believe in going on the offensive against the state. Most anarchists believe in self-defense and would accept some level of violence in a revolutionary situation.
The issue is not really violence vs. nonviolence. The issue is direct action. Anarchists believe that people — all people — should take their fate into their own hands, individually or collectively, whether doing that is legal or illegal and whether it has to involve violence or it can be accomplished nonviolently.
What exactly is the social structure of an anarchist society?Most anarchists are not “exactly” sure. The world will be a very different place after government has been abolished.
Anarchists don’t usually offer blueprints, but they propose some guiding principles. They say that mutual aid — cooperation rather than competition — is the soundest basis for social life. They are individualists in the sense that they think society exists for the benefit of the individual, not the other way around. They favor decentralization, meaning that the foundations of society should be local, face-to-face communities. These communities then federate — in relations of mutual aid — but only to coordinate activities which can’t be carried on by local communities. Anarchist decentralization turns the existing hierarchy upside down. Right now, the higher the level of government, the more power it has. Under anarchy, higher levels of association aren’t governments at all. They have no coercive power, and the higher you go, the less responsibility is delegated to them from below. Still, anarchists are aware of the risk that these federations might become bureaucratic and statist. We are utopians but we are also realists. We will have to monitor those federations closely. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Any last words?Winston Churchill, a deceased alcoholic English politician and war criminal, once wrote that “democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.” Anarchy is the worst system of society — except for all the others. So far, all civilizations (state societies) have collapsed and have been succeeded by anarchist societies. State societies are inherently unstable. Sooner or later, ours will also collapse. It’s not too soon to start thinking about what to put in its place. Anarchists have been thinking about that for over 200 years. We have a head start. We invite you to explore our ideas — and to join us in trying to make the world a better place.
Bob Black
For more reading and edumufication of your cranium go check out The Anarchist Library and visit Anti-Society TV for some video courses about Anarchism.
Friday, July 25, 2014
A new resistance!
This is a great project!
A New Resistance!
"Glyphosate. It is the key ingredient in "Roundup," a broad-spectrum weed killer developed by Monsanto. It has become the number one selling herbicide worldwide, due to the increase in the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops, which are genetically engineered to withstand multiple applications of the weed killer during the growth cycle. It is also used in residential gardens and neighborhood parks around the world. For 20 + years Monsanto has claimed that this proprietary weed killer is safe.But a host of recent studies have linked Roundup and glyphosate to an alarming number of diseases threatening animal and human health; including obesity, infertility, cancer, celiac disease, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel syndrome, autism and Alzheimer’s Disease. Also, we now understand that it is inside our bodies. More importantly, it is entering the bodies of our newborn children through breast milk.
In July 2013, despite countless letters and documents submitted in protest, the Environmental Protection Agency raised the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate in our food (most likely to accommodate the levels already routinely detected) - up to 30 times higher. Now officials are attempting to raise the allowable chemical residue of glyphosate in many important food crops that we eat everyday, including vegetables such as carrots, sweet potatoes, flax and sunflower seeds. The current allowable levels are already many times higher than has been shown to destroy the gut bacteria of chickens… so what is it doing to us?
It is time to investigate glyphosate’s impact on human health and the environment. It's time to stop raising the residue limits for a chemical that has potentially harmful effects on our health. It's time to stop the use of glyphosate altogether, unless and until peer-reviewed independent studies of glyphosate prove its use to be unquestionably safe."
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Manipulating Marijuana
 |
| THC-3D-(with-cannabis-leaf-bkg) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| protesting monsanto in san francisco (Photo credit: msdonnalee) |
Manipulating Marijuana: Monsanto and Syngenta Invest In RNA Interference Technology
By Tracy Giesz-Ramsay, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, July 30 2013
Having been cultivated and used ceremonially, recreationally and medicinally for thousands of years, cannabis – despite prohibitive laws surrounding the non-medicinal use of the plant – is undoubtedly on the radar of big agribusiness.
These companies would certainly turn a profit from developing a patentable transgenic seed for sole distribution if the use of cannabis were to become legal. It would be easy for these companies to create a monopoly over the industry by abusing their ties with federal regulators. This has all been a point of much debate within the cannabis community for many years.
With this in mind, it's fair to say that one of the only positives of marijuana prohibition, with the art of breeding, growing and distributing cannabis heavily underground for most of its commercial history, the Big 6 seed and chemical companies have not been able to dominate the industry with their patented technologies.
The trouble: things may change soon. Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, Dow and DuPont have, until recently, largely focused their energy on monopolizing the food industry, but some have developed a keen interest in this still-illegal plant as well.
Whether the backwards idea of keeping psychoactive plants entirely prohibited continues, or whether full legalization is granted, or simply if only medicinal liberties remain the loophole on marijuana use, these companies are seeking new and preparatory ways to cash-in on the popular use of cannabis.
With bureaucratic regulation of medicinal use of the plant being discussed in the halls of government and on its way to becoming the standard, many agro-companies are set to be outsourced as the main providers of medicinal pot. For obvious reasons then, these companies are already underway researching genetically modified (GM) cannabis in order to control its THC content.
If these corporations are given sole administrative power of seed distribution to the licensed medicinal outlets, they may want to keep THC at very low concentrations of 3 to 5%. On the contrary, if by retract of the recent medicinal freedom, pot becomes entirely prohibited once again, they can still benefit by joining hands with the champions of the drug war and eradicating THC content in the plant entirely.
THC: Potency the Natural Way
THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the psychoactive components in marijuana, has always been the subject of artful breeding. Without GM technology, experienced growers have perfected ancient methods of breeding organic cannabis with around 10% or more THC. By use of a natural cultivation process called human selection – a sped up form of natural selection – marijuana growers have been learning how to increase THC content without the use of any lab or corporate product.
This has enabled the marijuana world to maintain independence from the massive seed and chemical companies.
Of course, deep knowledge of the plant, extensive farming practices, genuine care and time spent in order to learn how to breed this useful plant, are a must for growers who want to deliver a truly organic, naturally cultivated and increasingly potent product.
In North America, British Columbia has been a place of highly concentrated talent – growers from all over the world come to the Northwest to take advantage of its nutrient-rich soil, prime weather conditions, and historically lax laws to learn how to grow potent marijuana, learning the best techniques to breed a product with a high THC content.
The concentration of organic-friendly farmers and environmentally concerned activists in the area have been a bonus to growers who, like tomato and arugula cultivators, learn from each other using permaculture-based methods (to ward off pests naturally without pesticides or BT technology, for instance) and thereby nurture prime conditions for growing successful healthy crops.
With the demand for potent BC Bud always increasing, of course there will be those attracted to growing with purely profit-driven motives. Rather than take the time and patience to learn true farming practices, some unexperienced growers will look to chemical companies to help increase their crop yields.
GM cannabis has already been developed for purely pharmaceutical use and to license to the government for medicinal study in laboratories. At the same time, over the last ten years, the realization that these chemicals and genetically modified versions of our ingestible plants could possibly cause major health problems like cancer, has been front and center on the stage of awareness.
Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other advocacy groups have said the risks of GM technologies have not been adequately identified or resolved. Opponents also question the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
The fight against GM food will surely heat up as this awareness increases. With the close-knit relationship between those who enjoy an organic plant-based diet and those who enjoy using marijuana, agribusiness might be safely kept away from cannabis cultivation – just so long as growers who value the true art of growing stick to their ancient practices, and those who are destructively profit-driven are pushed out.
But this will require high levels of consumer awareness. Medicinal patients should also demand their medicinal marijuana doesn't come from the laboratory, but rather, to have experienced organic growers be the government's source for licensed marijuana.
RNA interference
The biggest concern with cannabis and GM control now remains. While they gain a monopoly over medical marijuana, the challenge of governments who continue to wage the ostensible "War on Drugs" is being taken on by some of the Big 6. Monsanto and Syngenta are currently investing millions of dollars into a new GM technology called RNA interference.
RNAi, as it's also known, is a method where the RNA - which is the code from a plant or animal's DNA that tells its proteins how to organize in order to create, say, what colour the plant will be - is interfered with. In RNAi, double-stranded RNA is inserted so that this original code is obstructed; so that the pigmentation instructions don't make it to the proteins.
Scientists in Spain have successfully injected double-stranded RNA into a purple petunia to interfere with the genes that usually tell the flower to turn purple. Where the RNA code translation was interfered with, the flower grew white stripes where the proteins had no information on how to organize in order to create the colouring.
This process initially stepped into development as an alternative to insecticides: if you can insert double-stranded RNA into a plant's seed that is designed to interfere with the offending insect's RNA instructions for, say, digestive capabilities, after ingesting the plant and therefore the RNAi, the pest will no longer be able to eat.
More on this science has been in the works. Testing has already been done creating double-stranded RNA that have been injected into spider mites, the most resilient of crop pests, which interferes with the RNA instructing the mites' proteins on muscle development so the sider mite can no longer move.
The problem with this process is that the transgenic genes intended to interfere with the plant or the pest will then be ingested by the human. No matter how small an amount this gene interference is intended to be, there are scientists raising red flags about the potential harm this could have on our own biological systems or cell and protein development.
GM Cannabis
Here, the potential applications of this technology for the cannabis industry step onto the stage: imagine what genetic instructions within the cannabis plant might be interfered with. Certainly to profit from the billions spent on the Drug War in its attempt to eradicate the world of psychoactive plants, these companies might offer a rendition of this GM technology where genes determining THC content are interfered with.
If it weren't for the growing evidence that GM and RNAi crops may be damaging to humans, it's possible to imagine a host of potential benefits to genetically modifying the cannabis plant. Larger, more potent, and pest-resistent grow shows are an attractive proposition, but are they worth the many risks?
RNAi technology is still in its elementary development stage and they're currently testing methods by which to administer it. A spray that contains this double-stranded RNAi technology, is thought to be the most marketable, but in Spain, injecting RNAi directly into the seed has been the focus of their extensive research. Another step before making it to the market is the question of how to regulate it for food-safety and health risks.
Developers of RNAi technology estimate that it could take 5 to 10 years to bring the technology up to code, so there is still time to help support and empower organic growers and non-GM cultivators.
Canada will soon employ a new commercial medical marijuana production system, where large-scale producers will be permitted to grow cannabis and distribute it through the mail. If you have a licence to purchase cannabis for medicinal use in Canada, tell Health Canada to you will not accept a product that has been interfered with using GM or RNAi technology.
In the United States, it could be a long while before the federal government allows any kind of research and development into GM cannabis, let alone any kind of sales or distribution for medical or recreational purposes, but things are moving quickly at the state level.
The slogan "Know Your Farmer" has gained popularity over the years in enlightened agricultural circles. In order to save our most ancient and beloved psychoactive plants from falling into the hands and under the control of the agri-chem profiteers, let everyone remember the slogan "Know Your Grower."
Hard work, pure talent, and unparalleled dedication to the natural world will continue to deliver us both our health and our freedom.
CANNABIS CULTURE (http://www.cannabisculture.com/)
Sunday, September 9, 2012
We must be doing something right!
Upon logging into our Blogger account after a long absence from the web...
So, with curiosity peaked, we followed the link and did as we were told like good sheep should right?
In an ironic twist, it seems that the website is "down". LOL! Now that is instant Dharma (or is it?), muah! ha! ha! ha!
Now we don't want to cause any trouble for Blogger, or cause our site to be shut down, so we will refrain from re-publishing the page in question (for now), but in the spirit of fairness we believe that the information contained in the aforementioned post is important and relevant to you the reader, so we went back and previewed the offending post. Can you see the reason for such actions against us? Perhaps it was that the information that was being given out that was the real reason for such claims of copyright infringement. Look for yourself and you be the judge.
We will keep posting until this is resolved.
WTF? What was this violation about? Going back through the old inbox, the notice was found and opened.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Esoteric Agenda - FULL LENGTH MOVIE - WELCOME TO YOUR AWAKENING!
The TRUTH remains true my dear "sheeple", even if one chooses not to believe it...
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
An Intro. to a Resource-Based Economy
Image via This is the 18 min video backup for the live March 21st, TEDx [Portugal] Talk by Peter Joseph called: "An Introduction to a Resource-Based Economy ".
The actual live webcast should be found here: http://www.tedxoporto.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...
The actual live webcast should be found here: http://www.tedxoporto.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...
Sunday, January 29, 2012
On Beliefs and Being Wrong: An Occupy Discussion with a Homeless Guy Named Zack
"In Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States Since 1492”, he writes, “The historian’s distortion is more than technical, it is ideological; it is released into a world of contending interests, where any chosen emphasis supports (whether the historian means to or not) some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual.” (4)
So Zinn tells a different history of early America; not the version of the political and economic elite, but that of the common people. And the truths he reveals are very different, and much more disturbing than what we were taught in school. But almost as disturbing is the notion that we really can’t rely on, and indeed need to reconsider, just about everything we were ever taught."
"Disturbing yes, but also potentially liberating if the realization sinks in that we need to question what we are still being told today. And isn’t that what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about? People are waking up and questioning the story we are being told by the political and economic elites and the media they control. People are beginning to see that money and power skew everything, to such an extent that we really never know what the facts and truth are"
"I’m talking about what’s being called a "resource-based economic model"(9), a holistic social and economic system in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude. After all, that’s mostly the system we’ve had for about 95% of human existence, and one which was most nobly expressed in some of the Native American Indian cultures. Some people, like Steve McDonald, are envisioning that we are now entering a period in our evolution that some are calling “Neo-tribalism," where “we begin to see the Earth as one complex living system with its own intelligence, and ourselves as an integral part of it all. Now the tribe is humanity itself and our sacred land is planet Earth. There’s a trend towards a non-interfering minimalistic lifestyle that’s in harmony with nature, while maintaining all the advantages of our high technology.”
Read the entire article here...
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The History of People's Park in Bloomington, IN.
There is a place in southern Indiana that some call “the Oasis of the Midwest”. It is a small plot of land located at the corner of Dunn St. and Kirkwood Ave. in a growing college town called Bloomington. Today the park is more of a graveyard for memories, as the town that was at one time a flowering community of artist, poets, musicians, activist and hippies is being consumed by corporate America. The charming and locally owned shops and cafes that had at one time lined Kirkwood have now been replaced by fast food franchises, townhouse apartments, and trendy clothing stores. But, in the not so distant past, Bloomington, IN. was a political hot spot of social change and if you were a hippie or a punk or a radical or just a traveler passing through the area, everyone knew that the small patch of land that the locals call Peoples Park was the place to be.
“Peoples Park is on the west coast” some of you might say, and you would be right. Let’s have a little history lesson for those of you who may not know about Peoples Park. To begin the lesson we must take our thoughts away from the Midwestern United States and think of going west to sunny California.
People's Park in Berkeley, California, USA is a park off Telegraph Avenue, bounded by Haste and Bowditch Streets and Dwight Way, near the University of California, Berkeley. The park was created during the radical political activism of the late 1960s. Today it serves mainly as a daytime sanctuary for Berkeley's large homeless population who take advantage of meals offered by East Bay Food Not Bombs. Some students make regular use of the basketball courts, and a wider audience is attracted by occasional concerts held at the performance stage. Beyond the homeless, few Berkeley residents use the community garden or other facilities.
The mythology surrounding the park is an important part of local culture. The surrounding South Campus neighborhood was the scene of a major confrontation between student protestors and law enforcement during May, 1969. A mural near the park, painted by Berkeley artist and lawyer Osha Neumann, depicts the shooting of James Rector, a student who died from shotgun wounds inflicted by law enforcement on May 15, 1969.
Origin of the park
In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked a 2.8-acre (11,000 m2) plot of land containing residences for future development into student housing, parking and offices as part of the University's "Long Range Plan for Expansion." At the time funds were lacking to purchase the land, and the plan was shelved until June 1967, when the University acquired $1.3 million to take the land through the process of eminent domain. After taking control of the land, neighborhood residents were evicted, and demolition of the existing homes began.
By 1967 the University had altered its plan; the new plan was to build student parking lot and a playing field on the land. Demolition of the existing residences took over a year, and the University ran out of development funds, leaving the lot only partially cleared of demolition debris and rubble. It remained in this state for over a year, and as winter began the muddy site became derelict with abandoned cars.
“Peoples Park is on the west coast” some of you might say, and you would be right. Let’s have a little history lesson for those of you who may not know about Peoples Park. To begin the lesson we must take our thoughts away from the Midwestern United States and think of going west to sunny California.
People's Park in Berkeley, California, USA is a park off Telegraph Avenue, bounded by Haste and Bowditch Streets and Dwight Way, near the University of California, Berkeley. The park was created during the radical political activism of the late 1960s. Today it serves mainly as a daytime sanctuary for Berkeley's large homeless population who take advantage of meals offered by East Bay Food Not Bombs. Some students make regular use of the basketball courts, and a wider audience is attracted by occasional concerts held at the performance stage. Beyond the homeless, few Berkeley residents use the community garden or other facilities.
The mythology surrounding the park is an important part of local culture. The surrounding South Campus neighborhood was the scene of a major confrontation between student protestors and law enforcement during May, 1969. A mural near the park, painted by Berkeley artist and lawyer Osha Neumann, depicts the shooting of James Rector, a student who died from shotgun wounds inflicted by law enforcement on May 15, 1969.
Origin of the park
In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked a 2.8-acre (11,000 m2) plot of land containing residences for future development into student housing, parking and offices as part of the University's "Long Range Plan for Expansion." At the time funds were lacking to purchase the land, and the plan was shelved until June 1967, when the University acquired $1.3 million to take the land through the process of eminent domain. After taking control of the land, neighborhood residents were evicted, and demolition of the existing homes began.
By 1967 the University had altered its plan; the new plan was to build student parking lot and a playing field on the land. Demolition of the existing residences took over a year, and the University ran out of development funds, leaving the lot only partially cleared of demolition debris and rubble. It remained in this state for over a year, and as winter began the muddy site became derelict with abandoned cars.
On April 13, 1969, local merchants and residents held a meeting to discuss possible uses for the derelict site. Michael Delacour presented a plan for developing the under-utilized University-owned land into a public park. This plan was approved by those attending the meeting, but not by the University. Stew Albert, a co-founder of the Yippy Party, agreed to write an article for the local counter-culture newspaper, the Berkeley Barb, on the subject of the park, particularly to call for help from local residents.
Michael Delacour stated, "We wanted a free speech area that wasn't really controlled like Sproul Plaza was. It was another place to organize, another place to have a rally. The park was secondary." The University's Free Speech microphone was available to all students, with few if any restrictions on free speech. The construction of the People's Park involved many of the same people and politics as the 1964 Free Speech Movement.
On April 18, 1969, Albert's article appeared in the Berkeley Barb, and on Sunday, April 20, 1969 over 100 people arrived at the site to begin building the park. Local landscape architect Jon Read and many others contributed trees, flowers, shrubs, and sod. Free food was provided and community development of the park proceeded. Eventually, approximately 1000 people became directly involved, with many more donating money and materials. The park was essentially complete by mid-May.
Frank Bardacke, a participant in the park's development, stated in a documentary film called Berkeley in the Sixties, "A group of people took some corporate land, owned by the University of California, that was a parking lot and turned it into a park and then said, 'We're using the land better than you used it; it's ours'".
On April 28, 1969, Berkeley Vice Chancellor Earl Cheit released plans for a sports field to be built on the site. This plan conflicted with the plans of the People's Park activists. However, Vice Chancellor Cheit stated that he would take no action without notifying the park builders. Two days later, on April 30, he decided to allocate control over one quarter of the plot to the Park's builders. On May 6, 1969, Chancellor Heyns held a meeting with members of the People's Park committee, student representatives, and faculty from the College of Environmental Design. He set a time limit of three weeks for this group to produce a plan for the park, and he reiterated his promise not to take action without prior warning.
"Bloody Thursday" and its aftermath
During its first three weeks, People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood. Objections to the expropriation of University property tended to be mild, even among school administrators.
Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of University administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus, and he had received enormous popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what was perceived as the generally lax attitude at California's public universities. Reagan called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."
Reagan considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the University, and he found in it an opportunity to make good on his campaign promise.
Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6, 1969 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:45 a.m., he sent 250 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park. The officers cleared an 8-block area around the park while a large section of what had been planted was destroyed and an 8-foot (2.4 m) tall perimeter chain-link wire fence was installed to keep people out and to prevent the planting of more trees, grass, flowers and shrubs.
Beginning at noon, approximately 3,000 people appeared in Sproul Plaza at nearby U.C. Berkeley for a rally, the original purpose of which was to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several people spoke, then Michael Lerner ceded the Free Speech platform to ASUC Student Body President Dan Siegel because students were concerned about the fencing-off and destruction of the park. Siegel said later that he never intended to precipitate a riot; however when he shouted "Let's take back the park!," police turned off the sound system. This angered some people, and the crowd responded spontaneously, moving down Telegraph Avenue toward People's Park chanting "We want the park!"
Arriving in the early afternoon, the protestors were met by the remaining 159 Berkeley and University police officers assigned to guard the fenced-off park site. The protestors opened a fire hydrant, the officers fired tear gas canisters, some protestors attempted to tear down the fence, and bottles and rocks were thrown. A major confrontation ensued between law enforcement and the crowd. Initial attempts by the police to disperse the protestors were not successful, so more officers were called in from surrounding cities.
Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.
Under Meese's direction, the police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging.
The most aggressive were the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies—later dubbed "The Blue Meanies"—who resorted to using shotguns loaded with "00" buckshot. "00" buckshot consists of lead pellets that are much larger, and thus more lethal, than the birdshot that is occasionally used for crowd control. The Alameda County Sheriff's deputies used shotguns to fire "00" buckshot at people sitting on the roof at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema, fatally wounding student James Rector and permanently blinding carpenter Alan Blanchard. Neither man was a protestor.
As the protestors retreated, the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies chased them several blocks down Telegraph Avenue as far as Willard Junior High School at Derby Street, firing tear gas canisters and "00" buckshot into their backs as they fled. At least one tear gas canister landed on the school grounds. Many people, including innocent bystanders, suffered permanent injuries, some with as many as a hundred lead pellet wounds in their scalps, necks, backs, buttocks and thighs. One man, John Willard, lived for years in intractable pain with lead pellets lodged near his spine.
At least 128 Berkeley citizens were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by law enforcement. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested. Many more protestors and bystanders were treated for minor injuries. Local hospital logs show that 19 police officers or Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were treated for minor injuries; none were hospitalized.
The authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided "00" pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used, Sheriff Frank Madigan of Alameda County justified the use of shotguns loaded with lethal buckshot by stating "... the choice was essentially this: to use shotguns—because we didn't have the available manpower—or retreat and abandon the City of Berkeley to the mob." Sheriff Madigan did admit, however, that some of his deputies (many of whom were Vietnam War veterans) had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of the protestors, "as though they were Viet Cong."
Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops— ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty. The Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 against the decision to occupy their city, however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters scuttling along the street toward any group of more than two people together.
On Wednesday, May 21, 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the University campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.
During the Peoples Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protestors from planting flowers, shrubs or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD. A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles; this "fixed" this problem in the view of the governor's office. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence.
A curfew was established, and protestors jumped fences after dark to plant flowers in the guarded lots. Guardsmen destroyed the flowers each morning. Some protestors, their faces hidden with scarves, challenged police and National Guard troops. Hundreds were arrested, and Berkeley citizens who found it necessary to venture out during curfew hours risked police harassment and beatings. Berkeley city police officers were discovered to be parking several blocks away from the Annex park, removing their badges/identification and donning grotesque Halloween type masks (ironically including pig faces) to go inflict violence upon citizens they found in the park annex.
Flower Children vs.The Establishment; these differing perspectives mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.
In a University referendum held soon after, the U.C. Berkeley students themselves voted 12,719 to 2,175 in favor of keeping the park.
On May 30, 1969, 30,000 Berkeley citizens (out of a population of 100,000) secured a Berkeley city permit and marched without incident past barricaded People's Park to protest Governor Reagan's occupation of their city, the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard and the many injuries inflicted by law enforcement. Young girls slid flowers down the muzzles of bayoneted National Guard rifles, and a small airplane flew over the city trailing a banner that read, "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."
Almost a year after 'Bloody Thursday' and the death of James Rector, addressing the California Council of Growers at Yosemite, Reagan defended his actions, saying: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Less than a month later, on May 4, 1970, similar violence erupted at Kent State University, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.
No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions in the Bloody Thursday incident.
What do all of these events that took place in Berkley, CA. at the end of the 1960’s have to do with a little plot of land all the way over in Bloomington, IN.? Well boys and girls, gather around and settle down for the rest of our little history lesson.
History of “The Park”
A very leftie guy named Larry Canada owned the corner building at Kirkwood Ave. and Dunn St. and in 1968 that housed a business called “The Black Market”. It was a place to find records, zines and even art for and by mainly African Americans of the time, he invited all the leftie groups to move in. There were books and classes offered as well. During, I believe, Christmas vacation 1969 when everyone was gone the local K.K.K. burned it to the ground and no one was ever caught.
The building was eventually demolished and the vacant property was left abandoned for many years.
In 1967 Indianapolis native Kathy Noyes moved to Bloomington from Boston, where she had been enrolled in school. She was recently divorced from her husband, who had enlisted in the army after receiving his draft notice. She had an inheritance from her father, Evan Noyes, an executive with the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and nephew of the company’s founder. In Bloomington Noyes met Larry Canada, a local boy, who in her own words “swept me off of my feet.” They got married in Beck Chapel on the IU campus.
The northeast corner lot now known as “Peoples Park” was originally to be the home of “The Fated Calf.” a franchise restaurant, but those plans fell through. The vacant lot became over run with trash and litter and became an eyesore for the community. Then the local hippies and activist squatted on it and in March of 1970 turned it into Peoples Park'. The project was headed by Tom Canada the little brother of Larry Canada. Tom was quoted the by the Herald Telephone as saying “What we want to do is turn it into a park for the people. We want to plant flowers and put in benches. Anybody can use the park.”
A troubled history
Kathy Noyes Canada did more than just buy a farm and settle down to the joys of country living. Her husband had a vision of creating a new community in southern Indiana where people could come from all over the country and live freely off of the land. The Canadas bought several farms amassing about a thousand acres. Word went out that anyone could come live there for free. It did not take long for strangers from far places as distant as Washington D.C., and San Francisco to find there way there. Maybe that is where the “Oasis of the Midwest” title originated.
The FBI focused on the area because of Larry Canada’s friendship with Rennie Davis, one of the original members of the SDS, Davis and Canada were suspected of being part of that groups plot to plant a bomb in the nations capital. FBI came to Bloomington, specifically to Peoples Park looking for evidence that might be used against Canada. Local police arrested a few residents for possession of marijuana, but Kathy Canada suspected that they were more interested in finding out about her husbands political activities than they were in prosecuting people for pot. Black helicopters could be seen and heard in the skies above southern Indiana. After several months of surveillance, FBI agents arrested Larry Canada while he was sitting in Bloomington’s Peoples Park, on land also owned by him and Kathy.
As far as Kathy Canada was concerned, the situation was going downhill quickly. She had a small daughter to take care of and she was beginning to get frightened. One night in June 1971, someone burned a cross in a field opposite her house. Her neighbors received Ku Klux Klan literature in the mail. Finally Kathy divorced her husband.
In the 1960s a group of people lived in and around town who were connected in one way or another with the university people or with people who were, and who formed a viable cultural alternative to the local academic and business community. They were looking for a way out of straight society, a money-based economy, and all of the problems that went with the conventional lifestyles. Longtime residents were disturbed by newcomers who were drawn by Bloomington’s hospitality or attractiveness. What began as a peaceful cultural experiment turned into a battle between conflicting age groups and worldviews. Members of the counterculture took it all in as they continued to live their lives quietly on Bloomington’s streets, in country houses, and on nearby farms.
As far as Kathy Canada was concerned, the situation was going downhill quickly. She had a small daughter to take care of and she was beginning to get frightened. One night in June 1971, someone burned a cross in a field opposite her house. Her neighbors received Ku Klux Klan literature in the mail. Finally Kathy divorced her husband.
In the 1960s a group of people lived in and around town who were connected in one way or another with the university people or with people who were, and who formed a viable cultural alternative to the local academic and business community. They were looking for a way out of straight society, a money-based economy, and all of the problems that went with the conventional lifestyles. Longtime residents were disturbed by newcomers who were drawn by Bloomington’s hospitality or attractiveness. What began as a peaceful cultural experiment turned into a battle between conflicting age groups and worldviews. Members of the counterculture took it all in as they continued to live their lives quietly on Bloomington’s streets, in country houses, and on nearby farms.
The “Park” has went through its rough times over the years as well. In 1975 Larry Canada was poised to sell the park to a corporate firm who was in turn going to build a three story concrete business structure. According to an article in the Indiana Daily Student dated June 19, 1975 he changed his mind and gave up a “$2 million signed lease” for a space in the structure because of public opposition. He was also quoted as saying “There’s no reason that I as an individual should have to supply the public with something that is the responsibility of the city.”
Eventually Kathy Canada did donate the park to the city on the condition that the property always remain a park or it would be returned to her estate, and not long there after about 45 percent of the park was lost when the back field was paved over to make a parking lot.
In 1978 the “sitting walls” were added to the side of the park that faced Kirkwood Ave. New tables were added at this time as well as the first paved walk ways.
Then again in the eighties the park was stripped down and sterilized even more when nearly all of the original trees were uprooted and replaced with friendlier saplings while the majority of the grass was covered over with brick and pavement.
In the 1990’s police became concerned that the park was being used for loitering and drug traffic. It was rated by High Times magazine as the number five spot in the nation to score drugs. The city sought suggestions on how to make the park safer and more attractive. Fore the past two decades it has been a constant back and forth battle between local politicians and the people as to whether the park would be turned into commercial real estate or remain a park for the people. Police presence was increased over the past few years and there are even tales that the Park was under constant video surveillance. I have spent a good number of days in “the Park” just hanging out with friends and drinking (back when I did drink) or smoking some heady weed whenever I was in the area. I have made out with lovers and friends on the stone sculpture known as the U-ie and once had my check bone fractured when I got into some kind of drug induced drunken altercation. A lot has changed over the years. I no longer drink or use drugs these days and the park has become a concrete covered area that resembles a parking lot than a park. Everything changes with the passing of time I suppose.
I have even been hearing rumors that the park was recently "incorporated" by the Indiana University campus. These are as of this writing nothing more than rumors however. This could spell out bad news for the future of "Peoples Park" if these rumors prove to hold any truth.
Today, few of the people in People’s Park know the history of the place- the hippie head shops of the 1960s, the Black Market and the Klan firebombing in 1968, the connection with the Canadas. Ask people today what Bloomington is like and about “Peoples Park” and you are more likely to hear about the town’s links with the university, and especially with its nationally known basketball team. Then there are others that will say when asked “Bloomington,” with an odd knowing look in their eyes, “why, that’s the town where all the hippies were in the 1960s,” and then smile that strange little smile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)