DO NOT LET JEFF REISIG BECOME RE-ELECTED FOR YOLO COUNTY DA!!

chose to be led. chose your oppressors. elect people to represent you so you dont have to represent yourself.

Voting is just another tool in the toolbox, it doesn't say ONLY vote and do NOTHING else. Maybe represenational voting needs to be replaced by direct democracy voting as in Chiapas. In addition to voting people also need to focus on community involvement, daily economic boycotts of unethical corporations, and changing personal consumption lifestyle to apply more pressure to public officials and their corporate lobbyists. The most effective way 2 get what u want is 2 vote 4 the lesser evil, then continue yelling in the streets and outside their office when the elected candidates fall short of their promises..

In this case patricia lenzi is clearly the lesser evils as the gang injunction by Yolo county DA jeff reisig is a really bad (ineffective, inhumane yet NOT inexpensive) idea and violation of human rights. Having a say on the local level via town hall meetings is a form of direct democracy and glad that the people in West Sac had the meeting at the local union hall to share their concerns and hazards faced by the community in the form of reisig's gang injunction..

here's the website for Free West Sacramento blogspot,

http://westsacramento-gang.blogspot.com/

also;

http://www.freewestsacramento.org/

though the above site is momentarily down..

Am encouraging everyone (including cynical anarchists) to get out and vote for the lesser evil in your district, then continue using the other tools in the toolbox to express political dissent against the elected candidates, regardless of whether the election was stolen or unfairly manipulated by corporate lobbyists. Outside the duopoly democrat/republican choices the third parties (green, libertarian) have some good ideas worth hearing despite the lack of media coverage afforded to them. Camejo will once again be on the green party ticket against the "bomb baghdad softly" Democrats and "bomb then harshly" Republicans. Camejo's presence in the debates gives a third " bring the troops home from Iraq" perspective to an otherwise bipolar debate of how long the US should occupy Iraq. This is one example of a third party perspective that can stimulate an otherwise uninformative debate between Tweedle-dee-dumb Democrat and tweedle-dee-dumber Republican. So even a cynical anarchist could take a few moments to vote in the lesser evil cadidate on tuesday then resume protest activities, food not bombs, street theatre, critical mass etc.. on the remaining 364 days of the year..

remember. the lesser evil is still evil. why consent to and show support for someone who you should oppose?
why vote for your oppressor!?
oppose the entire system, not just its lackeys.
whoever you vote for, government wins

And when you don't vote, government wins AND the greater evil wins.

You might feel more pure not having voted for the lesser evil, but you are left with exactly the same thing or worse. Inaction effects absolutely nothing.

It takes all of 1 hour a year to inform youself and vote. Don't give up that one little tool. Sure, not much may change from your vote, but absolutely nothing changes when you don't. As with any action, it is the cumulative effects that matter as a single individual rarely if ever effects major societal change.

If all of the poor and radical people who don't vote now voted, we could maybe jump from the lesser evil (Dems) to things that show real promise (Greens et al). If all of the poor and radical people in this country voted, there would be no Republican party any more. It is largely through complacency that Republicans win a disproportinate number of elections. Wouldn't it be a better country if Democrats as they are now were the party of the far right, and there was a large solid block of Greens in Congress and state and local offices nationwide? That can never happen without radicals voting.

Voting is certainly not the be all and end all, as change must come on 100 different fronts, but it makes no sense to not use that one little tool once or twice a year.

Since we're on the subject of elections in Yolo county, thought i'ld tack this on the the comments. Currently the city council of Davis is voting 4-1 in favor of bringing a big box sweatshop store Target to the college town of Davis, CA. To allow Target into Davis, the City council would need to vote in opposition to the city's general plan that prevents sprawl development on the outer limits of the city. This protects the farmland and air quality, also the downtown businesses who shut down in other towns following a visit from Target, Wal-mart, etc..

Town hall meetings are another form of direct democracy, far more effective at meeting people's needs than representative democracy, especially when the elected officials do not represent the views of the people. This was proven in Davis a few months ago when developers of Covell Village convinced the council that they were what Davis needed, though following a referendum Covell Village was voted against by 59.99% of the voters in Davis. Many people believe that any city council decision in favor of Target would result in another referendum and a majority of the people voting against Target in a binding ballot measure..

The upcoming city council election in Davis could determine the outcome and swing the balance on council away from supporting Target and in opposition. That is provided that people are able and willing to vote for someone besides the Republican candidates who carry Target's campaign contributions in their pockets. Having a city council that is in tune with what the people (not the corporations) want would make life easier for everyone as Target won't need to be voted on. If the city council decides in favor of Target then there will be a referendum as the representation is not valid with the wishes of the people..

To bring this into the greater picture, what if Al Gore actually won the election? The SNL skit aside, it is important to think about how the election was stolen in Florida by Bush family nepotism, but also if the election process was different the votes for green party candidates would have swung to Gore, thus ensuring a lesser evil in DC. Activists would continue to protest Gore's profits from Occidental petroleum destruction of the rainforest and the U'wa peoples home, exposing his hypocrisy on global warming, though we would probably not be in the crypto-fascist police state we're in now under the worse evil of the Bush/Cheney regime..

Nobody expects any anarchists to volunteer time to any political campaign, though walking into the polling booth on tuesday and checking a few boxes isn't really harming their anarchist ethics from what i can tell. Maybe voting somehow acknowledges that this corrupt system indeed exists, but try ignoring the system long enough, does that just make it go away??

What really changed my mind from an overly cynical anti-authoritarian to an anti-authoritarian willing to use another tool long forgotten was the turnout in nearby Dixon where community members in favor of Magna Entertainment Corporation willingly discarded their right to a binding vote on MEC's mega-horserace casino dubbed "Dixon Downs" landing in farmland just off I-80. Smog from traffic bottlenecks, pollution from ammonia (in horseshit runoff), animal cruelty and other problems that would accompany this horsetrack were not discussed, only that city council was elected and should "do their job." Opponents of MEC's Dixon Downs pointed out that true democracy allows the people a chance to vote on a potentially divisive issue like this and allow for more time, dialogue and public awareness of the risks before an obviously biased city council bulldozes the road open for MEC's horseshit stadium. If the people of Dixon were given the chance to vote against the recently constructed Wal-mart on the I-80, am willing to wager that over 60% of the people would have voted against it, thus saving one more small downtown business district from an early death..

So either way my goal is to vote for the lesser evils this election on Tuesday and then hold whomever acountable for their actions at city council meetings and through other channels. Protests, direct action and networking with other activists are all needed activities besides voting, the other 364 days of the year. Sort of like rowing a kayak, the initial dip of the oar in the water needs a sweeping follow through to get us anywhere. Voting is that first dip, then every other action during the remainder of the year is the follow through. Where the US population seems to have fallen off is in both not caring about voting and not caring to take any personal actions in their local community. In the daily 364 struggle situation anarchists and other leftist activists are very committed, though these are the same folks who revoke that other part of their collective power by not voting on that one day (or two) per year. This contrasts to the committed voter who feels that the ballot is the only place to express their opinion, after that one day the elected officials aren't held accountable for their actions on the remaining 364..

To sum up, my vote will be for the two Democrats Lamar and Stan who are oppossed to Target coming to Davis. If they win, then the balance in Davis city council would swing in favor of NO Target in Davis, thus saving the air, downtown businesses, and preventing other big box (ie. Wal-mart) from coming into town on Target's coatails..

Run down of Davis city council candidates views on Target coming to Davis;
http://www.notargetindavis.org/candidates.html

Anarchists obviously do not deny that politics are a reality, or deny that the system exists. We oppose the system, and do not wish to take part in it. when you use voting as a 'tool', you are giving your consent for the system, and giving your consent to be ruled. We do not wish to be ruled by the lesser evil. We will never consent to be ruled or oppressed, whether it be by democrat, republican, communist, etc.
Our boycott of elections and government politics is not a rejection of reality, we merely do not wish to empower the system by taking part in it. Regardless of which lackey wins the election; capitialism wins, government wins, representative democracy wins, the deferance of power to authority wins.

>when you use voting as a 'tool', you are giving your consent for the system, and giving your consent to be ruled. We do not wish to be ruled by the lesser evil.

Consent or not, you are ruled. That is reality. Personally, I would rather be ruled by the lesser evil and I use my one little vote to indicate as much. I vote as far Left as I can in almost every election (except for certain strategic conditions that arise once in a while). In time that lesser evil can be reduced even further as more radicals vote and more people become radicalized. If radicals chose not to vote at all, then that's giving consent to be ruled over by those who vote for the greater evil. Making no choice is a choice, too.

>we merely do not wish to empower the system by taking part in it.

No offense, but you are seriously kidding yourself if you think you are not already taking part in the system. I doubt that you use barter only and do not use cash. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to only spend one's money on sustainable endeavors, never once dropping cash on a corporate or chain store. If you work, you pay taxes or face jail time. If you don't work, then you are living off of others who do and are tied in that way. If you pay rent (or live with someone else who does), you are supporting a property-owning capitalist. You used electricity to compose your comment here (and probably even corporate software and hardware) and that contributes to global warming.

Like it or not, we are ALL a part of the system. The only escape would be to live on a farm or in a forest somewhere as a survivalist, but even then you are tresspassing (breaking laws which can be enforced against you) or owning property, thereby having to raise revenue in order to pay property taxes to the government.

Essentially, there is no escape for those of us who chose to live amongst other people. We are in the system and give our "consent" to it 1000 different ways every day. Hopefully, as we participate in the system as it currently exists we are also working to build alternative realities, but it is currently impossible to do that 100% of the time. We can help shape the system to things we favor by spending our money on organic produce and locally-owned businesses, reducing our non-sustainable consumption, taking public transportation (gov't owned), and so forth.

Voting is the same as all of these other consumer choices, it's just being an active and socially-conscious political consumer. If Democrats turn your stomach, vote Green or some other alt party. As I assume you do with many other choices every day and throughout the year, take the time to push the ball further in the right direction. If enough radical people are pushing on the levers of corporate and political power, we can help create a new more just world.

The idea is to minimize the harm we cause to the world in our process of living here. Voting is one small way to try to do that. Being passive to the forces around us does no one any good.

The shit-stinking fraud called "American democracy" USES THEM as a tool of legitimization via the rigged fakery called elections. What the fuck will it take to jolt Americans out of their trance? Changing the system from within -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Anyone over the age of ten who believes such a thing is possible is a COMPLACENT IDIOT. This system is foul beyond the reach of internal reform. The way to change it is by slashing all the Eichmanns' heads off and singing jubilantly in the shower of their arterial blood

♪♪O what a beautiful mornin
O what a beautiful day♪♪
I got a beautiful feelin
Evrything's goin my way

Yeah, and Manson fantasized about showers of blood, too, in his own sick little naive and sadistic way. He egomaniacally thought he could personally ignite a bloody revolution and then end up as one of its sole survivors.

Odds are, this bloody revolution you fantasize about, you can live to be 100 and you ain't gonna see it. If it should happen, odds would be that we'd end up with a military theocracy and you'd be amongst the first killed. (That is if you're not really a cop provocateur who would be the first in line to kill for the American Jesus.)

Short of that bloddy revolution, sure opt out, don't vote, and just passively accept the greater evil running things for a good long time to come because you can't be bothered, or it's beneath you, to spend 15 minutes once or twice a year to pull a little lever.

Other issues about voting in a representative democracy;

The elected officials make promises they don't keep, though they remain in power for the duration of their term, often accumulating wealth from campaign contributions that are given favors in return. A real life example is the Wal-mart incursions into towns and neighborhoods that are often supported by the majority of city council members despite overwhelming public opposition..

Anarchists and other apolitical types have yet to explain how their ideal community would go about making decisions. If a representative democracy is flawed in their view, perhaps a direct democracy that is inclusive of every member of the community in decision making would be more acceptable. This follows the EZLN Zapatista caracoles (sea shell) model of concensus based decsion making. In this model all people are expected to participate and share their ideas in the town meetings, or their view will not be considered..

The US representative election system is a far cry from the Zapatista's direct democracy as many residents are unable to vote. Furthermore our reps don't respect the wishes of the people, another contrast to the EZLN reps who sit and talk with the community before making decisions. Frequent address changes, houselessness and delays in obtaining citizenship are just a few common occurences that can prevent people from expressing their vote in the US. The Zapatistas allow everyone to vote, count every vote, every vote counts..

The nextdoor neighbor's opinions are not heard in the US election system either. For example, if the Dixon city council is approached by Magna Entertainment Corporation with their plans for the Dixon Downs horseracing stadium on the I-80 interchange with Pedrick Rd., the resulting increase in smog will 9/10 days blow directly over the homes of residents in nearby Davis. Yet the people of Davis are not given the chance to vote on MEC's proposal even though the implementation of the Dixon Downs project will effect their personal health, community and overall well-being..

Since we're on a Yolo county thread there's another issue about Woodland's ballot measure A that should be brought out in the open, though many Woodland residents aren't aware of the existance of imc, though a few are. Either way imc is a way of recording info for later use, even if the message gets out past due. This hydrology flood debate may be boring for some, though the point is to look at local issues in enough detail to distinguish between two very different outcomes proposed by two very different people, Woodland Mayor Matt Rexroad and Woodland Supervisor candidate Brenda Cedarblade. On the local level political differences are more apparent than the national debate between fellow Skull & Bonesmen Kerry and Bush..

Here's an article from the Sac Bee (notorious for leaving out info) that details the local debate in Woodland on the measure A flood wall, Urban Limit Line, wetlands restoration, etc..

"The people who are spurring this whole thing are Sacramento developers," said Brenda Cedarblade, who helped lead the charge against a proposed flood wall that would have shunted floodwater away from the city. "They want to develop cheap land they bought in the floodplain, and they want the citizens of Woodland to pay for it."

Cedarblade lives on 20 acres a little outside Woodland that would have been affected by the flood wall. Although she cannot vote in city elections, she helped spearhead a 2004 initiative drive that banned any city investment in studying a wall, and she promises more initiatives as needed.

With anti-wall sentiment so strong, some in Woodland are rooting instead for the idea of building new levees farther away from Cache Creek, widening its channel so more water can flow through after a big storm.

Such setback levees could also be a longer-term fix for the erosion cutting into creek banks and existing levees, said Rodney Mayer, acting flood management chief at the state Department of Water Resources."

more on Woodland's floodwall debate;
http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=481

Today on Democracy Now ecologist David Helvarg discussed some of the reasons why Katrina's flooding in New Orleans was so severe. Global warming raises ocean temps, more evaporation, more water fuel for hurricane clouds, and higher storm surges cause a more severe hurricane. Levees cannot function if wetlands and other buffer zones have been removed and rivers, bayous, etc.. have become channelized. Channelizing a river (straighter and deeper channel) is a recipe for faster flowing flood disaster waters once a levee breaks. The Mississippi was channelized and other channels traverse the bayous, done mostly by the oil corporations. Settling lower income people (ie., 9th ward) in the lowest possible elevation of the city and not providing them with any means to escape contributes to a localized genocide, a modern day trail of tears relocation program for African-americans of New Orleans. All that misery and suffering could have been prevented if wetlands restoration was taken seriously..

"We haven’t committed dollar -- which is to say Congress hasn’t committed dollar one to wetlands restoration, even though there's a very practical in-place program called Louisiana 2050, which could restore -- for $14 billion restore the salt marshes in the bayous of southern Louisiana, which act as natural storm barriers. Every two-and-a-half miles of wetlands reduce storm surge by a foot.

<-->

What happened is the Army Corps of Engineers, doing flood management, basically straightened out the Mississippi, turned it into like a hydraulic speedway, as did the oil industry, which built canals, straight lines all through southern Louisiana, to access their facilities. The result is all that sediment that used to build up land just gets driven out into the deep gulf, and because that sediment is now loaded with heavy petrochemical add-ons with fertilizers, synthetic fertilizing chemicals, all that sediment, instead of building land, goes out and grows a second bloom of algae, that then as it decays, it becomes a massive dead zone, sucks all the oxygen out of the Gulf.

And so, if you put the bends and restore the wetlands and the natural flow of the Mississippi, even with subsidence and sea-level rise, there's enough sediment flow that you can re-grow the wetlands and bring back some of that diversity. And, of course, in growing it out, you would want to reduce the chemical inputs that we’ve added to industrial agriculture. You want to have clean sediment to build clean and productive wetlands."

more on New Orleans & wetlands as flood prevention @;
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/05/1351224

Now we're returned to the Sacramento Valley, specifically Woodland. Many years ago the Cache Creek river's meander (naturalized curves) was altered. Not sure of Cache Creek's original condition, apparently it fed into the Sacramento River to the east after widening out into a floodplain wetland. Either way prior to Columbus arrival on Turtle Island (north america) rivers and wetlands formed their own paths according to geography, and the indigenous Patwin people lived their lives around the riparian ecosystem. Plenty of tule reeds, ducks, acorns, molluscs, wild rice, etc.. available to satisfy their nutritional needs without needing drastic alterations to the riparian corridor..

"From most accounts, however, at the time of European contact the Patwin and their neighbors were peaceful, grounded people who had managed to achieve some sense of balance with the lands they occupied. They subsisted on acorns, grass seeds, fish, small mammals, roots, tubers, wild berries and fruits, occasionally taking deer or elk.

<-->

The river Patwin tribes who lived adjacent to the Sacramento and its seasonal flood waters had access to vast schools of salmon, steelhead, and other anadromous fish. Putah and Cache Creeks, which merged with the Sacramento flood plain marshes only during high water, supported at least enough salmon and sturgeon to provide auxiliary food for native peoples along their lower reaches. Along neither stream were anadromous fish harvests likely to have provided the bulk of native diets, as they did for Patwin groups living along the Sacramento."

more on Patwin ecosymbiosis in Yolo Basin wetlands @;
http://bioregion.ucdavis.edu/where/doslpast.html

Today Cache Creek passes Woodland to the north and settles in a basin to the east of town where it meets in the Yolo Bypass with the waters of Putah Creek (enters south of Davis)..

Yolo Bypass wildlife refuge @;
http://www.yolobasin.org/wildlife.cfm

The water eventually runs off and enters the shipping channel that parallels the Sacramento river. Woodland's eastern region is naturally at lower elevation than the rest of downtown Woodland, this indicated by the city's current Urban Limit Line (ULL) that prevents any future development on the eastern floodplain. The proposal by Matt Rexroad is to expand the urban limit line beyond its existing boundaries by several miles to the east, directly into the floodplain. The only flood control prevention Rexroad endorses is the floodwall option that surrounds the ULL several miles away from Cache Creek, bisecting and swallowing farmland with urban sprawl up to the new ULL..

The Army Corps of Engineers lists other possible flood prevention measures, including the levee setback option that moves the levees back and expands the riparian corridor along the river. Levee setback gives endangered riparian vegetation (cottonwoods, willows, oaks, etc..) a chance to expand and regain their helpful role as sediment trapping flood buffer strips. Giving the river a wider channel with riparian vegetation will slow the velocity of the water, thus less pressure on the levees. The Cache Creek settling basin should remain as a wetland habitat and store the water at Yolo Bypass. Development east of Pole Line Road needs to remain off limits and the Woodland ULL not moved eastwards..

Trip to the past to remind everyone that the new replacements on the Board of Reclamation are far more developer friendly than the original scientists fired by Arnold..

10/05
"Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced the state Board of Reclamation, which is in charge of flood control in the Central Valley. The board oversees almost 1,600 miles of levees, also referred to as federal project levees. Yolo County has more than 200 miles of these project levees.

The former board, most of whom were appointed by Gov. Gray Davis, spoke out against developments behind weak project levees, specifically the redevelopment of the Old Sugar Mill in Clarksburg. Replaced members were given no explanation for their removal -- although it has been common practice for the sitting governor to put his own people on such boards -- and the new board has before it more questions than obvious answers on flood-control policy."

<-->

Rexroad wants to quash notions that developers drive the flood-management decisions. The city is drawing up a map that would [re]set the urban boundaries for development [development boundaries already exist further west than proposed resetting]. Rexroad says that map will go before voters, possibly next year. Any proposals for development outside the urban limit would also have to go before voters."

other Sac valley flooding issues @;
http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=450

In this piece above the Sac Business Journal makes Rexroad's proposal of the ULL expansion appear to set boundaries for development, though there are already existing boundaries that prevent sprawl from consuming more of Woodland's surrounding farmland. Simply including the [re] pretext in front of words 'set the urban boundaries' changes the article entirely. The inspiration of the SouthCentral community farm in LA applies here also, why not save the valuable farmland surrounding Woodland for community garden plots for local schools, neighborhoods, etc.. to have permaculture gardens with oak trees as boundary markers. We really don't need fences and border walls, let nature choose the boundaries according to geography and let human society adjust to ecosystems instead of the other way around..

To clarify, voting NO on measure A leaves Woodland's Urban Limit Line in it's existing location, while a YES vote on measure A would expand the ULL, most drastically to the east into known flood zones. Currently most of Woodland's residents live further west than the flood zone and aren't at much risk of flooding. Most of the development in the eastern part is industrial and or corporate development (Target shipping/recieving warehouse, new suburban sprawl homes, etc..) thus the fears and concerns of flooding are mostly economic, not based on human lives. Either way wetlands restoration and expansion of Cache Creek's wetlands corridor via levee setbacks would be the safest way to ensure resident's long term safety. Another point to counter the Corps arguement that levee setback is undesireable is the way they propose going about it is the most destructive option. Instead of bulldozing the existing levees and killing off habitat for the endangered valley elderberry beetle, why not leave the existing levee and riparian vegetation standing (thus strengthening levee from erosion), build new setback levees further away from river's channel, then let seed dispersal growth into newly reclaimed habitat expand the vegetation to meet the setback levee. Eventually the older levee will be dispersed by floods, though the new setback levee will be strong enough (supported by riparian vegetation) to retain the waters until they enter the wetlands of the settling basin in the east..

Brenda Cedarblade is a world apart from Matt Rexroad when it comes to floodplain issues that will effect Woodland and points beyond. After a visit to her store in downtown Woodland, it is my belief that Brenda knows what she's talking about with regards to the floodplain prevention debate, ULL, etc..

Mayor Rexroad's Urban Limit Line "ULL" is really an Urban EXPANSION line [let's call it what it is, a UEL]. Matt's history of City politics clearly shows he is not a friend to agriculture in Yolo County. This is a scheme being sold to voters as a "slow growth" policy. In fact, this new line creates a major growth opportunity on our prime agricultural land. Land now substantially owned by Sacramento Developers. The "ULL" allows the city to significantly exceed the population allowed by the current General Plan voted on in 1996 which imposed a growth cap of 60,000 people in 2015.

We already have growth limits which were set by voters in 1996, the "ULL" will change these limits to allow growth to the north and east, bringing more sprawl. Major development will be allowed in areas subject to "Deep Flooding". Growth in the floodplain shifts flooding onto surrounding properties; as well as CREATING SERIOUS FLOOD RISK to our community. As homeowners in the Southeast area found, development in the floodplain shifts flooding potential and insurance burdens onto neighboring properties that previously had no flood risk. It is like putting bricks in a filled bathtub. If you build in the floodplain, you put human lives at risk, what happens if we have an earthquake and the levee breeches?"

More on flood walls, Rexroad's UEL, etc @;
http://www.brendacedarblade.com/new/index.php?module=article&view=7&MMN_position=5:5

In closing, detailed issues such as the Woodland UEL ballot measure proposal by Republican Rexroad, flood walls, etc.. really make a difference if they pass or not in their local communities. Whomever get's elected (Go Brenda!) will need to be held accountable by the community to maintain their promises throughout the entire term. Elected officials are more approachable than the Kerry/Bush Bonesmen would ever be, so voting in local issues and maintaining grassroots pressure (aka direct democracy) on public officials via town hall meetings will get people their democracy back. Then we can better discuss the downfalls of capitalism in public forums instead of playing tag with fascist police after our dissent has become criminalized by Republican thugs like Bush, Schwartzenegger, Rexroad, etc..

To supplement voting and mainstream enviro groups, a Sacramento Valley Earth First!ers collective needs to happen in some form, maybe on the new sacramento imc website as an online meeting place since people live so far apart, and inclusion of a San Joaquin Valley Earth First!er's collective to cover ecological issues in the southern half. Maybe the two halves of the great central valley could become whole by meeting halfway at the delta where both rivers merge to become one..

This from EF! Journal Beltane issue on the effects of flooding;

"Let's be clear: If the powerful continue on the current track of ecological destruction, their "collapse" will not be liberating, glorifying or adventuresome. If New Orleans is any indication, their collapse will first and foremost affect the same people who have always been exploited by civilization?those not part of the dominant race or the dominant class."

more EF! strategies @;
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/articles.php?a=904

The elites who live at the pinnacle of the class pyramid and enjoy the pig's share of all good things are now a tinier percentage of humanity than ever before, by far, and their power over the rest of us is therefore stretched thinner, more precariously leveraged, than ever before. They've figured out lots of amazing ways to accomplish this, but these amount to counter-entropic whippy limbs on which they've crawled way way out. It's related to the way their wealth is more speculative i.e. illusory than ever. In their mania to have more more more and to keep everyone else away from their stash, they'll do pretty much any insane thing.

They've got you tricked, like most people, into imagining their power over you is more total than ever, and in fact this is as far from the truth as can be. They're crowded on the tip of a needle that's balanced on end. They're fantastically vulnerable. One good tremor and they would fall a hundred miles onto solid rock, AND THEY KNOW IT!!!!

Their only hope for hanging onto what they've got is by keeping you totally hypnotized that they're invincible and that you and the rest of the herd are nothing, when in fact all the 'yous' out there rolled together are so enormous and so latently powerful relative to them that if you were to wake up and realize yourselves, all you'd have to do to bring them down would be to stand next to their needle and stomp your foot once

It wouldn't take a bloody revolution to force HUGE concessions from them! All it would take is opening our eyes and seeing the reality of this power relationship. Their terror of our giant foot rising up and poising to slam down would accomplish everything. So much as the RUMOR, circulating among international financial elites, that this might happen would destroy them, and their wealth is their GOD. It's their morality and metaphysics and religion. It's the center of their world. That's why they were throwing themselves out of skyscrapers in 1929. Causing them to merely suspect that they might lose everything slams a white-hot dagger into their guts. They just can't handle it, it freaks them out. They're basically morbid neurotic mutant babies. That's why they can never have enough.

And their grasp of power relationships is superb -- unlike yours. That's their definitive gift. They know perfectly well the truth of everything I've just said to you.

All we have to do to turn the tables is make clear to them that we have achieved this revolutionary clarity of thought: that we know what they've done to us, that we're mad as a billion-ton hornet about it, that we're out to rip their fucking heads off, and that we don't give a shit what they think they've got. That's it, baby. We win. Bush and everyone like him would be a sour memory. The way you make your clarity clear is by announcing you want to take a shower in their blood.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Manson wasn't nuts after all, but perfectly lucid? His followers may have been dumb, but that's a different story. Do you actually think their monolithic propaganda machine would allow you to learn this about him? He was the embodiment of their worst fucking nightmare! Of course they had to make a Satan out of him! They've showered orgasmic praise and heaps of lucre on Bugliosi for doing this for them so brilliantly, in his anal-uptight hippy-hater way. People have forgotten how this media pulled out all the stops to buffalo them into watching the TV-movie version of Helter-Skelter, which ran for four hours on two consecutive nights on the biggest network and was COMMERCIAL FREE! It was a theater-quality production, spare no expense, and WAAAAY over the top. It didn't show Manson and the Family, it showed a bunch of freakazoid space-aliens who had stepped off a UFO. This movie, more than anything, established the present image of him. THIS IS HOW THEY KEEP US FOOLED!! TV is incredibly powerful, their most strategic instrument. Jeezuss man, how obvious does it have to get for you?!

Vietnam proved absolutely that when an entire people or even just a goodly percentage are driven to clarity on matters of power, no government and no amount of superweapons can hope to defeat them. They become a cosmic force. We the common people of the West are, relative to this tiny elite, a thousand times more powerful than the people of Vietnam. We know where they live. We don't have 8,000 miles of Pacific Ocean blocking us from lunging for their throats. We own lots of guns already. We could have the military rank and file on our side in a minute. Our latent capacity to rise up into a mile-high tidal wave of revolutionary power has never diminished, only increased. If they were to clamp down, REALLY clamp down, they would only unleash it. They know all this. Everything they're doing now is last-ditch attempts to tweak their formula, masterminded by honest-to-God Kissinger-type lunatics.

They don't have absolute power over us! It's the opposite!!! They're filling their pants with runny shit out of terror of us! That's why they're scrambling to invest hundreds of billions in a total surveillance and domestic intel capability. They know their dirty tricks and their psychotic greed are catching up with them, hitting a final wall of hard limits like all the rest of their science. Meanwhile we quickly develop cognitive immune responses to every slimy trick they can think of. This ability is vividly represented in the 9-11 truth movement. As flaky as some of those "skeptics" can be, they represent a deadly ominous potential, a dawning realization that NOTHING the billionaires and their agents say through any medium can be believed. The billionaire scum know we're waking up, even if we don't!!!

Again, it doesn't matter what they've got. They can have all the cameras and spies and goons and guns and bombs they want. Once we hate their guts enough to conquer our fear of these things, all they can do is run like jackrabbits, and where are they going to run to? The moon? Everybody else on earth hates their guts this much already.

They've caved in before in the way I'm explaining to you. History bears me out. Every concession they've ever granted to us, starting with the Bill of Rights and democratic process, has been them recognizing power's true landscape. It happened in the 1930s, when they gave us FDR and the New Deal. It happened again in the 1960s, when they gave us the Great Society and eventually lulled us back to sleep with Carter. They didn't want to do those things, they just realized they damn well better. Each time, King Kong's eyes were fluttering open. That's all it takes.

You need to wake up to the real meanings of history, man, the ones they've been hiding from you. You have to understand the need to hate them as much as I do and to let them know you know it. Everybody does. I'm your alarm clock, and that's why I'm beeping over here.

You're right, I am dumb. But now that you have informed me so well I don't see rich people as deserving of their disproportiate wealth any longer. What was I thinking? I had always assumed they were good people and I was too afraid to resist.

Anyway, good luck with your bloody revolution. I'm now certain that all your big talk is much more than that. Definitely your plans for violence are far more productive than voting, so you can feel real proud of yourself today for not choosing who rules over you but letting property owners choose for you. What a waste of 15 minutes it is to vote! Obviously you are a man of action and you may very well be the next John Brown inspiring us all. I'll look for coverage of your revolution on the 11 o'clock news tonight and tomorrow night and the night after that. I will wait with baited breath.

Yup that's right. Alternatively, I could jerk off into a glass and make a pina colada with it. That would also be more productive than voting.

Also if you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE, moron, you may notice I'm saying "bloody revolution" isn't even necessary

People like you just don't have the guts to face that real electoral representation has been subverted now, that you've been thrown over a barrel and are getting your ass blown out with a chainsaw (so are your kids if you're irresponsible enough to have any), and that the easy once-a-year pantomime of political involvement known as 'voting' isn't going to change anything. Even assuming the process is honest, the candidates getting dangled in front of you AREN'T EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THE SHOTS!! They're just puppets twitching and jerking on strings. How can people not see this?

It takes guts to get angry enough to discard your bullshit assumptions and take understanding to the next level. People with courage and spirit turn on their attackers, they don't just lay down and take the chainsaw

Speaking of kids, you have some don't you? And you don't want to understand how you've fucked them by bringing them into this mess, do you? So therefore all the rah rah USA land of the free bullshit must be essentially true, isn't that right? Yeah, I've seen this a lot. Guess what, pal: all the rah rah USA land of the free bullshit has NEVER been true. And you fucked them. Face it. better yet, set off the firestorm that will REALLY change that. Voting sure won't. That's a one-step-forward-three-steps-back game for fools.

Lay it out for us. Step by step.
What is your alternative?

Almost 40 and no kids, sorry for ya.

Don't break your arm as you pat yourself on your back so furiously for all of your supposed "guts" and "courage". Writing about showers of blood in a comment thread is really not all that brave. Now making showers of blood happen by your own hands, that's another story. I'm still waiting with baited breath for that.

As for the "the rah rah USA land," again I must thank you for informing me so clearly. I truely have believed everything good I was told about this country. I am trying, though, to catch up with your revolutionary genius in having personally figured out the American ruse. That takes real brains to figure out. Something I surely lack.

The problem with your line of thought is that you think you already have it all figured out and unfortunately the world is just not living up to your revolutionary standards, so you can tilt at windmills all you like, or fantasize about playing the Grim Reaper, but that ain't changing a single fucking thing. Hating people is not a revolution, it's actually more of the same.

I had read what you wrote, and I do not consider the New Deal or the Great Society revolutions. They were bribes to prevent revolutions.

For once, though, you do step back from your calls for bloodlust and make an ounce of sense:

>I'm saying "bloody revolution" isn't even necessary

Now, you are maybe getting it, by showing a more mature, less adolescent "kill your parents" kind of thinking. By the time you have the numbers, the critical mass to pull off a bloody revolution, and win, you actually have the numbers, the critical mass, to pull it off largely without blood. Most attempts at bloody revolution without proper support from the public fail miserably. And if they do happen to succeed, what you end up with is the tyranny of a violent minority.

Bloody revolution is not all that it's cracked up to be. Look at the US Civil War. Freed the slaves, right? That was undoubtedly good. But other than that, it didn't really change much except that a whole lot of Americans killed eachother. African Americans in this country had to endure another 100 years of hell in this country because that bloody revolution, bloody civil war didn't change people's minds. It took many more generations to change people's minds so that African Americans could finally vote in the latter part of the 20th century and groups the KKK became fringe. Real revolutions can take hundreds of years. It's never as simple as chopping off a few heads and voila, there's your utopian society and everyone in it is good.


Again, it takes all of 15 minutes to vote, and I don't consider it any more skin off my back than when I spend MONEY to evil corporations just to get by in this world (like to buy electricity to type this comment) -- in fact, I consider it more like buying organics from a local farmer when I vote Green or other alt parties, still tied into the system and still capitalist, as virtually everything we do is, but helping to foster new more sustainable realities. You make similar compromises yourself every day as a consumer of products (as I elaborated above), yet somehow as a political consumer you have decided to leave the decisions to others. You feel you are above voting as if that's a dirtier contribution to the system than giving it your hard-earned dough (assuming you earn your own dough). I have no illusions about the power of one vote for a Green, as I have no illusions about the power of spending one dollar with a local organic farmer. Both are tiny acts carried out by an insignifican individual. But, compile my doing so with the thousands of others who do the same, and multiply that by the millions who are within reach of similar actions, and then you have a revolution of sorts.

Please excuse TW. He's got an overabundence of testosterone in his system, and his limited reaction to his surroundings is "Can I fuck it?" or "Can I kill it?"

Nice bitchy sarcasm here:

"I truely have believed everything good I was told about this country. I am trying, though, to catch up with your revolutionary genius in having personally figured out the American ruse."

Which you then completely botch here

"Look at the US Civil War. Freed the slaves, right? That was undoubtedly good."

No it didn't. That's a total misinterpretation of what it was even about, straight out of McGraw-Hill's 'American History In A #10 Can.' What it did was end blacks' status as extremely valuable livestock, which actually made their lives much more hellish. They spent the next 100 years as punching bags for southern white bitterness and in fact continued to be enslaved. The institution was just concealed behind a laughable facade of "prison work gangs." In many communities every single black man was arrested on some bullshit charge and locked up in a work camp that *rented* them to businesses as slave labor, in this way literally working them to death. This went on for at least 70 years. Don't even drop the phrase "freed the slaves." Meanwhile lynchings were rampant, peaking at around 500 per year in the 1890s -- far far worse than during the antebellum period. Blacks didn't really get liberated until they did it themselves 100 years after that war, and now even this has been largely eroded.

None of this ever stopped smug northern "liberals" (shit-eating hypocrites then, shit-eating hypocrites now) from congratulating themselves on their benevolence, of course.

What finally brought about real black liberation in the '60s was the emergence of "we aren't going to take this bullshit anymore" black militants and underground revolutionary movements: Malcolm X and Black Nationalism, mind-boggling riots, the Black Panthers, incredible armed demonstrations like the Willard Straight Hall hostage takeover at Cornell, pictured above. Another civil war was taking shape. Even Martin Luther King was getting relatively militant toward the end, which is undoubtedly why the FBI decided to blow a hole through him with a rhino gun.

In other words true black liberation came about only when blacks took matters into their own hands and resorted to PRECISELY WHAT I'M ADVOCATING

"They were bribes to prevent revolutions."

Quibble fuckin quibble. THEEE POINT is that these "bribes" effected sharply leftward policy sea-changes much more rapidly and dramatically than any ten million shuffling zombie voters EVER HAVE. Now that voting is essentially totally meaningless anyway, you could have 100% voter turnout and they still wouldn't accomplish as much as some kid with a well-aimed squirt gun.

"Now, you are maybe getting it"

But it's the same point I made in the post before that. You said you read it. Did you lie?

"...multiply that by the millions who are within reach of similar actions, and then you have a revolution of sorts."

Look, all this sounds very urbane and boujie-raisonable, but the stone cold truth is that it's bankrupt. Your political species has been mouthing this "slow steady progress" line of bullshit for decades, and yet now here we are teetering on the brink of true fascism. If voting is such an effective strategy for forcing positive political change, why have we lost so much political ground since the '70s? Since the '30s? It looks to me more like the corporate scrooges have the real handle on "slow & steady." They keep having their Whores on the Hill crank the screws a little tighter, a little tighter, until WHAM!!!! The people lose patience and begin thinking in terms of blood showers and then -- hey-hey, wuddayaknow! -- the Whores on the Hill cough up a "bribe," as you say.

So how is it that I'm daft and you're Father Wisdom again? I still don' got it.

When I treat someone like a dumb-ass who doesn't think, it's usually because they're a dumb-ass who doesn't think. That or they're much more invested in the status quo than they're admitting...

"Hating people is not a revolution"

Oh yeah it is. That's exactly what it is. There has never been a serious revolution in which the militants believed "peace is the answer" or "love conquers all" or "hatred is just WRONG." All that PC flower-tossing crap is immensely debilitating. That's why the big corporate propaganda machine keeps shoveling it out of the honey-wagon into your brain. Pay attention. Yes, it does make you sound ew syew proppah and smug, just like all their favorite mind-bending slogans. "Support the troops," for example

Get a critical number thinking thinking seriously about "singing jubilantly in the shower of their arterial blood" and that's it, whip-crack, done, just like in the '30s, just like in the '60s.

That was the significance of this stuff: "All we have to do to turn the tables is make clear to them that we have achieved this revolutionary clarity of thought" ... "Their terror of our giant foot rising up and poising to slam down would accomplish everything. So much as the RUMOR, circulating among international financial elites, that this might happen would destroy them"

Ever hear of shorthand? In about twice the length with three times the hostility, you repeated the exact same thing I said that you were supposedly disagreeing with. Yeesh. Let's compare, professor.

me: Look at the US Civil War... another 100 years of hell
you: No it didn't. ... 100 years after that war

>took matters into their own hands and resorted to PRECISELY WHAT I'M ADVOCATING

It makes me cringe every time someone points to the Panthers to justify the Left acquiring arms or as an example of successful militant revolutionaries. I have nothing but respect for the Panthers, but it just amazes me that those who claim to have a giant historical chip on their shoulder such as yourself continue to so blatantly miss one of the key historical lessons of the Panthers, that is that most of the greatest ones were murdered in cold blood or set up for crimes they did not commit (think COINTELPRO), thereby negating much of what they accomplished. The Panthers are a perfect example of what I said earlier -- that most who attempt an armed revolution without proper public support are doomed to failure. They did many incredible things, among them the community services they created that violent fantasists like yourself always overlook. They helped cut down on police violence in the neighborhoods and cities they covered. But successful as armed militants and revolutionaries? Nope. The system just kept rewriting laws to disempower them, and because they scared people and lacked critical support from the masses (even amongst many of their own race), it was all too easy for the cops and feds to knock them off one by one, and two by two. Besides, they were not at all about showers of blood. They were the Black Panther Party for Self-defense -- quite a different thing. They were NOT at all advocating what you did with your showers of blood comment. The Panther's legacy does live on in a number of positive ways, but armed militancy is not generally one of them.

If any single thing or movement could be pointed to as helping move this country (somewhat) past the stone age of institutionalized racism, that would be the civil disobedience of Parks, King, and countless others. While they were quite radical for their time, on the whole they pulled on the nation's guilt strings rather than fostering a stubborn defensiveness in the national mindset (of course, there were plenty of asshole throwbacks blocking school doorways, etc). But it led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and Brown vs the Board of Education amongst other concrete steps forward.

>leftward policy sea-changes

Pointing out that the New Deal was not a revolution is not quibbling. You seem to agree it was not when you called it a "leftward policy sea-change". And if leftward policy sea-changes are something you value, then voting is one part of getting there, not the be-all-and-end-all but one part. The New Deal, the Voting Rights Act, and so forth all passed through Congress vis a vi the consent of the majority of voters.

Sorry that incrementalism is largely unfulfilling for you, but that is how most change is made. There is little immediate gratification in activism. Yes, there is tampering with elections, many if not most pols are corrupt, but it is one way people can non-violently express themselves politically (there are others too). I wholeheartedly feel that if everyone who identifies with radicalism (and I know many) who does not currently vote, took the 15 minutes to vote once or twice a year, you'd see a lot more Greens in office. They are not perfect, but their platform jives much more closely with my values than either of the corporate twin parties. More Greens would mean more Dems moving leftward. More Dems moving leftward would mean Repugs would have to as well, or they would break into two as their hardcore afficianados dissented with the leftward shift. It's speculation, but it's what I believe. It seems far more real to me than talking about splitting heads and hoping that the good guys (our guys) win in that blood bath. History has been much kinder to those who organize non-violently to actively resist (massive boycotts, rallies, general strikes, civil disobedience and the like, on truly massive scales) than to those who have taken up arms to try to do the same.

"you repeated the exact same thing I said [about the Civil war]"

No, "exact same thing" doesn't quite fit

1) You seriously distorted the reasons for that war, implying it was a revolution to free the slaves and blithely ignoring what it was really about. Do you actually believe the North was engaged in "benevolent" aggression? This would be hitting the self-destruct button as a credible historical analyst

2) By way of propping up the above canard, you dropped the phrase "freed the slaves" and you did not retract it. In fact they were "freed" only in the minds of chortling self-congratulating northern boujie-liberals a thousand miles away. You never quite drop this 'freed the slaves' conceit because this would impinge on fallacy #1, which seems to be vitally important to you.

Moving on, why are you latching onto the Panthers exclusively in this regard when there were so many other things going on? For example you talk about the Voting Rights Act and Brown v Board of Education as things the Panthers influenced, when in fact Brown v. Board of Education was handed down 12 years before the Panthers originated in October 1966. It's pretty irrelevant to a discussion of '60s black armed resistance movements in any case. The Voting Rights act also passed fourteen months before the Panthers existed. The Panthers are not the main event here, more like a captivating side-show.

What WAS going on was an incredible level of seething anger and militant energy diffused among blacks in squalid inner cities all over the country. They had been disabused of any mistaken faith in ever being treated honorably by the white establishment and were literally resonating with eagerness to martyr themselves in an armed struggle against it. Liberty or death, baby. The air was crackling with this tension. You can feel it unmistakeably in recordings of the period, for example in Malcolm X's 1964 Detroit 'Ballot or Bullet' speech ( http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/9862.php ). Even in this murky audio recording, the energy of the audience stands your hair on end. This rage was exploding like a volcano year after year in the worst riots this country had seen in living memory. It is no exxageration to say that this entire generation of black youth would have hurled itself into an armed movement had such a thing been available to them, and it was only a matter of time. They had nothing to lose, their sense of options had reached the final impasse. You have no experience with what this means, do you?

No member of the political cognoscenti had the least doubt about Malcolm's claim that there was a humongous powderkeg looming in front of them with the fuse sizzling along real good. This was a dire threat to the country's economic stability, i.e. to the billionaires' bottom line, and the Voting Rights Act (and all the rest of Johnson's concessions) was a rush response to this five-alarm emergency.

To the native sensibility of the billionaires and their puppets, who cared if the blacks burned down their own communities? This would rate nothing more than a good belly laugh, except at the same time America was swinging its big imperial dick all around the planet, claiming to be the great champion of world freedom by way of justifying its mass butchery of whole societies. Now hold on just a minute there: America is "the great champion of world freedom," and yet it's one of the two most blatant racist oppressors in the Western world??? Well that shit doesn't hang together! This was throwing mucho egg on America's belligerent role in international affairs, which is another reason something urgently had to give. International conquest and everything that factors into, e.g. the illusion of propriety, is this government's number one priority.

"Pointing out that the New Deal was not a revolution is not quibbling."

But I never said it was. I characterized it as an ameliorating policy RESPONSE to a MOUNTING THREAT of popular rebellion, very similar to what I've set down here about Johnson's Great Society. That's a real slick word trick you got there. You keep claiming to be historically fluent and yet you keep trying to slip this sort of sly inversion into your arguments. It's very interesting.

I could develop my point about the New Deal, but why bother when you can pick up Zinn's "A People's History..." and read page after page about it? Lots of other solid scholars say the same. It's pretty much a consensus among left historians. Are you hostile to left historians, by any chance?

"...if leftward policy sea-changes are something you value, then voting is one part of getting there"

No it's not. It's very clear that it's not. When I used that word 'bankrupt,' that's what it signified. Leftward policy sea-changes are obviously completely contrary to this government's view of its own prerogatives. Think fascism. That's what this ruling order really is in its heart of hearts. They only swing to the left -- and it tends to happen abruptly -- when its very clear that the public is getting alienated and pissed off, so they have to modulate their game or positive feedback will set in and finally everyone everywhere will know the creepy truth: that they're the biggest political snake-oil dealers in history.

"The New Deal, the Voting Rights Act, and so forth all passed through Congress vis a vi the consent of the majority of voters."

You keep clinging to this inane faith that voter feedback, either prior or anticipated, is the all-encompassing context of this government's policy decisions. In other words you keep insisting that policy directives come up FROM BELOW, when there are all sorts of reasons to believe they come down from ABOVE, i.e. from a supreme economic elite aka oligarchy, and that the main purpose of the once-a-year ritual called voting is to con the hoi polloi into BELIEVING their input is the great decider.

For one thing, there's the obsession with foreign entanglements. Like I said, that's far and away this government's number one priority. How does this reflect the will of the people? Their innate and completely sensible reaction is to leave other people alone. When a decision is made to go beat someone up somewhere, it invariably originates in some back room in Washington and then the people are RAILROADED into going along with it. I defy you to give me one example from the past 180 years that does not fit this pattern.

Now if you look at this through the idea of the super-rich being the true dominant constituency, it makes absolutely perfect sense. Those are always the people behind imperial madness. It's completely consistent for them to want to go dominate other parts of the world so they can steal all the wealth there.

Lurking 'bipartisan consensus' on matters the parties pretend to dispute pops another very big hole in your theory

http://hiaw.org/defcon1/zinncarebu21.html

Clinton is an excellent example. He was a virtuoso bullshitter, but if you ignore that and look at what he DID, his accomplishments flow quite well into Dubya's, especially on the foreign policy front. And yet liberals imagine these two are fire and ice. Why is that? Could it be they're just complacent fools?

Furthermore, even if democratic process was on the up-and-up in the '30s, what makes you so confident it still is? The array of means by which electoral process can be disconnected from actual representation is staggering now, starting with electronic voting machines, going through older methods of vote-rigging, the billionaire-controlled media's ability to cook public perception of issues and politicians both before and after election, the need among candidates to scrape up millions of dollars for each election cycle (sucking billionaire dick works real good)...

Politicians turn around and shitcan every single campaign promise all the time. According to your facile model, this should always be a fatal mistake, but it often isn't. There are too many ways for interested parties to introduce noise into the feedback loop.

All in all, yours is a position of lazy-minded blind faith. You think you're an agent of progress and political sanity, when actually you're a stodgy tortoise blocking the road. All in all, you seem like a pretty typical American liberal, i.e. a soft-rightist who will bolt straight into fascism should the smell of fire hit your nostrils. It's not like your species has any real convictions. Even the rabid right is less disgusting in this respect.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

-- Michael Rivero

>You seriously distorted the reasons for that war

I never stated the "reason" for the war -- I was talking about the results. Besides, it's off topic, this quibbling over the Civil War. I brought it up as an example that even the appearance that a nation-wide violent bloodbath accomplished something doesn't mean it really did. Hence, the 100 more years of hell comment I made. Now you want to endlessly argue about the war, basically saying the same thing I did, that it didn't really "free" people (although technically it lead to Constitional changes that outlawed slavery).

>By way of propping up the above canard, you dropped the phrase "freed the slaves" and you did not retract it.

And I still don't take it back. That was one of the larger results of it. Nothing about back-patting for whitey, just a fact. The 14th Amendment came out of that war and African Americans stepped up from 3/5 of a person, if even only on paper (and the 14th amendment was later misused to grant corporations personhood as well). Nevertheless, legalities aside, African Americans faced another 100 years of hell (i.e. all of the violence didn't even truly "free" people to be full citizens, just stopped legalized slavery). Ergo, my point that you can take violence to the level of all-out civil war and still not accomplish much for oppressed peoples.

>Moving on, why are you latching onto the Panthers

I didn't even bring the Panthers up. Just pointed out that they were a poor example for making the case that showers of blood, or even the threat of it, is very effective as a tool for change. Dr. History even provided a photo to illustrate his love of guns and violence as a political tool. I know quite well the timeline of Brown and the VRA, and never even suggested the Panthers had a thing to do with those. My point was those were concrete improvements made largely without violence, the types of incremental change that don't really jive with showers of blood rhetoric.

>What WAS going on... You have no experience with what this means, do you?

You still fail to make your point about showers of blood effecting positive change for oppressed people, especially in this country. I don't care to argue endlessly beyond this point nor to discuss every historical event. Yes, there was seething anger, but the biggest changes had already happened and no heads were cut off for those changes to slowly take effect. Lastly here, while they might make you feel better about yourself, your pointless condescensions add nothing to this discussion.

>the Voting Rights Act (and all the rest of Johnson's concessions) was a rush response to this five-alarm emergency.

The VRA passed before most of the big riots of the 60s. Not implemented until a few years later, but it had already passed. People were increasingly vocal and participating in civil disobedience prior to its passage. King and others knew that their minority could never "win" against an oppressive majority with violence and things could get worse. X and the Panthers were about self-defense, not showers of blood of their oppressors.

>To the native sensibility of the billionaires and their puppets

You act as if you are the only person on the planet who has thought about these things. Yeesh.

>"Pointing out that the New Deal was not a revolution is not quibbling." But I never said it was.

Scroll up. You definitely did call my pointing that out quibbling. And you suggested it was near-revolution that propelled it. (After your showers of blood comment.)

>Are you hostile to left historians, by any chance?

Yes, I know Zinn et al. I do still manage to formulate my own opinions, though. Yeesh, you opinion lemming. There was restlessness, but nothing approaching impending revolution. A large restless group can accomplish more than violent revolutionaries, at least that's what the history of this country shows (and you have failed to show otherwise).

>"...if leftward policy sea-changes are something you value, then voting is one part of getting there" No it's not. It's very clear that it's not.

I don't care to endlessly debate you about voting -- yes it is, not it's not, blah blah blah. You bring up Clinton and 100 other straw men, when I have only spoken about radicals voting to push the ball further to the left, not falling in line with the Democratic Party. You have ignored all of my comments about your contributions to the system that I think are worse than voting for a Green (spending $$ with big corps, etc). You don't wanna vote? Then don't. Fine. But do not kid yourself for a second that your fantasies of glorious violence are realistic in the least nor do they make one whit of difference. You think you personally scare billionaires saying such things??? That's the only reason I chimed in here, to call you on your BS. You can say I took a bow for checking out at this point, whatever, but you are the one who made that comment and failed to back it up. New Deal, incremental change, not even close to your bloody revolution, Panthers, not successful as militant revolutionaries (and you miss what they were really trying to do and what many of their other positive accomplishments were).

Besides, I have to throw this out. You are basically another chickenhawk wimp running around calling for blood but not even pricking a single (billionaire's) finger yourself. Do you intend to lead by example or just send thousands of others off to their deaths in a futile attempt at violent change?

He's a chickenhawk calling for OTHER people's blood, while he lives a life of safety, comfort and convience, having earned his money the old fashioned way- by marrying into it.

"I never stated the "reason" for the war"

You wrote this:

"Bloody revolution is not all that it's cracked up to be. Look at the US Civil War. Freed the slaves, right? That was undoubtedly good. But other than that, it didn't really change much except that a whole lot of Americans killed eachother."

This seems to distort that war into a revolution to free the slaves, and to assume that freeing the slaves was its whole purpose. These distortions and assumptions color your analysis and conclusions and pretty much invalidate them. You're not presenting an example from history so much as inventing one. I don't accept that I'm entirely imagining this. For one thing you plainly indulged in the same sort of sloppy thinking in reference to the New Deal and Great Society

"I do not consider the New Deal or the Great Society revolutions"

Again, I never remotely said they were. This is another of your inventions.

I think it's as likely you got caught taking an absurd position and are now backpedaling. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, my "reading more carefully" would not have prevented the communication failure, since the real problem is your sloppy ambiguous prose.

"You still fail to make your point about showers of blood effecting positive change"

And I've explained very thoroughly and very well to you that actual "bloody revolution" was not my real purpose, but still you insist that it was

"no heads were cut off for those changes to slowly take effect."

Yes, that's right, it didn't have to come to that. THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT. Nonetheless they were a clear response to the national emergency of mounting black revolutionary spirit, and as such things go they did NOT take place slowly, but rather urgently

"your pointless condescensions add nothing to this discussion."

I'm contemptuous of people whose minds are as complacent, willfully dense, and latently dishonest as yours. You deserve it. You're more criminal than you know.

"The VRA passed before most of the big riots of the 60s."

And as I very clearly laid out, its real impetus was the "powderkeg" of militant tension Malcolm X laid his finger on a year earlier, and about which the cognoscenti were acutely anxious.

"I didn't even bring the Panthers up. Just pointed out that they were a poor example..."

You focussed on them to near-exclusion in your previous post while ignoring the larger sweep of things and the real source of elite concern.

"X and the Panthers were about self-defense, not showers of blood of their oppressors."

Just simply wrong. Malcolm X explicitly advocated "black nationalism," the word 'nationalism' being widely understood to mean revolution. If you listen to his rhetoric, it's very clear that he was aiming for precisely the same effect that I am aiming for, i.e. the THREAT of imminent violence and economic upheaval as the only political currency the ruling mafia really respects and responds to. He had them completely figured out, which is why the US Gestapo silenced him with bullets way before they did King. The demonstrators at Cornell had also very clearly arrived at my own strategic conclusions. They did not menace their hostages, were actually very civil to them. Their object was obviously a DISPLAY of force that would attract national attention and ultimately coerce policy concessions. Smart guys. Smarter than you. They hardly even did any time. This is very different from what you're saying about the Panthers, who AGAIN were not the only thing going on. There you go cherry-picking them again.

"You act as if you are the only person on the planet who has thought about [elite arrogance and ulterior motives, undisclosed subtexts of national policy]."

You sure don't seem to have given these things much serious thought, given your blind faith in the power of selecting their technicians once a year as a means to keep them in check

"You definitely did call my pointing that out quibbling."

Okay, this is another communication failure. What I MEANT was not that I never called it quibbling, but that I never thought or said that the New Deal was a revolution. Go back and reread my words and hopefully you'll see they could also have this meaning.

"There was restlessness [during the Depression], but nothing approaching impending revolution."

Wrong again. There were avowed revolutionaries on both the left and the right, but even more importantly there were hundreds of thousands of unemployed, alienated, very pissed off young men in the cities aching for a fight and emotionally stoked to fill those movements needs for cannonfodder. Roosevelt loaded these guys onto busses en masse and shipped them off to work camps in the middle of Appalachia where 1) they couldn't hurt anything important 2) they were worked to exhaustion every day, draining off their dangerous energy. This was the real meaning of the "conservation" programs. Brilliant guy, Roosevelt, probably the most brilliant President ever. True world-class social engineer.

"You have failed to show [that violent revolutionaries ever accomplish more than a large restless group]"

This is
1) a lie
2) a sly modulation of your argument

"I don't care to endlessly debate you about voting"

So then why are you?

"...your fantasies of glorious violence..."

Deliberately twisting back to "bloody revolution" as my actual objective, after I've addressed this
In other words another cheap stunt

"You think you personally scare billionaires saying such things???"

Ah so you DO understand what I'm after! My my, isn't that interesting. Me individually, no. If lots more people were to chime in, then you damn right. I'm just trying to get the ball rolling, that's all

"...another chickenhawk wimp..."

You're the one trying to hand those guys their ticket to never-ending power

Oh and Tia: gee, you sound so bitter. Is it that hard on you, not being able to troll for Israel on Indybay no more? There's lots of other IMCs you can pester, you know. Most of them aren't as clued in to your kind as this one. BAHAHAHAHAHA! Bye-bye, now. Have fun in Irrelevantville. YAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"Oh and Tia: gee, you sound so bitter. Is it that hard on you, not being able to troll for Israel on Indybay no more? There's lots of other IMCs you can pester, you know. Most of them aren't as clued in to your kind as this one. BAHAHAHAHAHA! Bye-bye, now. Have fun in Irrelevantville. YAHAHAHAHAHA!! "

What makes you think I give a damn about relevancy?

I've found a lovely little IMC, not far from here, where I can post all I want- where I am never deleted or autoblocked- and where I can express my opinions freely without having sociopaths describe how they want to mutilate my body. And yeah, troubles melt like lemon drops, away upon the chimney tops. Its a refreshing change. And Indybay has become so dishwater dull, many have joined me there.

I'm not bitter- but I am disappointed. This was my neighborhood IMC. I'm disappointed in Indybay, because of the bad decisions they have made that are counter to the principles of Open publishing

You hypocrisy continues to astound me. You milk the single mother/ life of poverty story for all its worth- you espouse the principles of anarcho-primitivism while living the lifestyle you rage against. Its the Earth First! bumpersticker on the SUV syndrome- I thought you were sincerely misguided, with equal emphasis on the sincere and the misguided- but the reality is that you are just another self righteous, smug little hypocrite. You stay in America precisely because it is here that you enjoy a life of convienience and privilege, without the dignity of having earned it by the sweat of your brow or the result of your labor. My life- with my rescued animals and furniture gleaned from bulk garbage pickup is more authentic and earth friendly than yours- and you have the nerve to have spent the last year criticizing me.

Both you and Nessie encourage "revolution" from afar, while unwilling or incapable of dirtying yourselves in the process. You have too much to lose...its clear to see. You are as wedded to the establishment as any neo-con- you just don't have the self-awareness to admit it. Come the class war- you'll be gone way before me, even if you offer up your in laws as sacrificial lambs.

It really was your family that sailed to Tahiti, wasn't it? Jeez....Talk about priviledge....

Or built by myself with salvaged lumber. You don't know anything about my lifestyle

I want nothing to do with my in-laws' 'burby bourgeois values and assumptions and have made this vividly clear to them. Relations between them and myself have become pretty tense, thank you.

I met my wife when she lived away from home and I neither understood nor considered these things. I was more naive then. Besides, should I have rejected her over it when she's still a great loving person? It was also less true then, their wealth having increased considerably, largely because their real estate has appreciated incredibly. They bore a stronger resemblance to average people then. Now that I've come to know them better, what am I supposed to do, dump her despite her faith in me? Does Tia actually believe that would be honorable, or is she just being a spiteful harridan?

I also love this LAND, deeply, powerfully. You know this, ya disingenuous peessa shit. That, to me, is patriotism. This government and the corrupt filth commanding it can sizzle and scream in hell for the rest of time. Americans who think THAT is a thing to be loyal to are self-betraying fools.

If you'll remember, I didn't bring up the single-mother thing until a certain Haitian bigot called me "a lawyer's son" and pulled the 'monopoly on victimhood' act. It's entirely natural that you would identify with him.

You're the one who claims to value empathy as the supreme virtue, but who dispenses it very, uh, shall we say, SELECTIVELY. Uh-huh. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick with the "hypocrite" label

I'm back, jack. And you apparently have a hard time practicin' what you preach.


>Relations between them and myself have become pretty tense

But have you cut off their heads yet and danced in their blood? Nope. Have you threatened to do so in order to intimidate them into relinquishing their wealth? Nope.

>should I have rejected her over it when she's still a great loving person?

You scream for peoples heads, calling for violent (or near-violent) revolution, call those who dare to vote all sorts of foul names, as if they are Satan no matter whom they vote for, and then you are just in a quandary with what to do when it comes to your own life. No revolution there, just some *tension*. That's really just too rich.

>what am I supposed to do, dump her

If you want to live true to your word, or your loud-mouthing here, then you damned-well better. Anything less is blatant hypocrisy when your words and actions diverge to such extremes. Or maybe you could stay with her and you could show a little more humility when attacking others for their supposed sins. You obviously have a fleck in your eye, mack. No wonder you ignored all my queries about compromises we all make with "the system" every day. There was a bit more there than I even suspected. And you have the nerve to attack me for voting Green when you cuddle with the upperclass every day. What a hypocritical jerk!

Go make yourself some white-baby stew. You'll feel much better. As for decapitating rich greedy people, you're right man, I'm through being a hypocrite. what say I start with you? C'mon, you rich and greedy and you know it

Upper class? Nah, not even close. Middle class is all, but the entire US middle class still has the Marie Antoinette let-them-eat-cake mentality now. I bet they're no richer than you, Dundee. You're a smug comfy boujie-liberal fake-left urban fraud just like them. How much did ya gross last year? I also notice you can't ran out of fake rebuttals.

" Now that I've come to know them better, what am I supposed to do, dump her despite her faith in me? Does Tia actually believe that would be honorable, or is she just being a spiteful harridan? "

Of course not. In this cold dark world, we need to cling to whatever source of warmth and light we can find. But maybe you should realize that your class enemies raised this source of warmth and light, so perhaps cut them some slack, there.

"If you'll remember, I didn't bring up the single-mother thing until a certain Haitian bigot called me "a lawyer's son" and pulled the 'monopoly on victimhood' act."

You also brought it up with Megafauna- who had just dropped out of college because her single mother couldn't pay the bills. It was particularly difficult for me to read that exchange, knowing what Megafauna was going through. Nope- you also wrap yourself in the cloak of your own victimhood SELECTIVELY, hiding the fact that your life is really no different than most of middle America. You talk the talk without walking the walk. Thats the source of my outrage with you.

"You're the one who claims to value empathy as the supreme virtue, but who dispenses it very, uh, shall we say, SELECTIVELY. Uh-huh. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick with the "hypocrite" label "

I am also the one who talks about elevating the quality of debate here, and single handedly destroyed an interesting thread here with a post of ad hominems, and for that I apologize.