The world remade

21 04 2011

Care of Pambazuka News

To choose democracy is not to choose Europe and it is certainly not to choose the United States of America, which has overthrown democratically elected governments around the world when electorates have had the temerity to elect the ‘wrong’ leaders. In fact, any serious commitment to democracy has to reject the moral and political authority of Europe and the United States of America. Any commitment to democracy has to assert, very clearly, that all people everywhere have the right to govern themselves according to their own will.

We cannot know the trajectories of the uprisings that have swept North Africa and the Middle East. But one thing is for sure. Whatever pompous claims to the contrary come out of Washington and Brussels, these are not revolts for American or European values. On the contrary they are a direct challenge to those values. They are revolts against a global power structure that is formed by an international alliance of elites with one of its key principles being the idea, the racist idea, that Arabs are ‘not yet ready’ for democracy. This, of course, is an echo of one of the common justifications for apartheid. But the plain fact of the matter is that anyone who says that anyone else isn’t yet ready for democracy is no democrat.

Ben Ali and Mubarak were little more than co-opted Bantustan leaders in a system of global apartheid. Gadaffi’s oil funded cruelty, megalomania and opportunism has taken him in many directions in his 42-year reign but have, in recent years, been leading him in the same direction. Democratising a Bantustan is progress. But democratising a Bantustan is not enough. The whole global system needs to be democratised.

On Libya

14 03 2011

A friend recently asked me my thoughts about the African and Arab uprisings and whether or not they will lead to more dictatorship.  I responded with the following:

I’ve been following what’s been happening in the Arab world since reports starting coming in about the demonstrations in Egypt. Everyone here, much like the rest of the world, barely heard about Tunisia until it happened.  It wasn’t even rated as a news story.

These are very significant events in the history of the post-colonial world, and the tendency for the news media, except maybe, Al Jazeera, to gloss over them or badly report them is a crime.  The same can be said for the international community that has been working very hard to find out what each uprising means for them and their interests before trying to decide how to turn the situation to their benefit.  It is destroying the huge potential of these uprisings.

Colonialism never truly died in these countries. The colonial powers formally relinquished control, but their presence remained. The eager revolutionaries and organisations that took their place instituted authoritarian rule, and the same Western powers that once colonised these countries for their resources or strategic military value, simply made friends with the dictator to open the doors to commerce. Large corporations then moved in to extract resources from the country, export them home, and pay the dictator millions of dollars while the people remained in poverty.

Part of the reason these authoritarian regimes have been able to come to power is because the people of these former colonies have never had a chance to “birth” a new national identity, one based on honour, respect and equal rights.  Colonial rule ended suddenly, and the institutions that lead to oppression under colonialism, generally, remained in place.  As such, no new identity was born.  While the French were able to do it in the face of their monarchy, and the Americans did it in the face of Britain, the colonial power, in the countries now experience unrest there is simply a perpetuation of the privilege, humiliation and abuses that occurred under colonialism.  These uprisings are the next step in the process, where the people rise up, kick out their petty tyrants and establish an identity that is not based in humiliation and subjugation. This is why all these uprisings have had a nationalist bent — and while I’m against nationalism as an oppressive, divisive concept often aimed at achieving conformity and suppressing difference, I accept the nationalism of these uprisings as an attempt to re-express an identity.

It is a fundamentally good thing.

The next thing that is necessary to consider is that not all country’s in Africa and the Middle East are the same.  Tunisia and Egypt were similar because both governments tried to maintain a thin veil of legitimacy to the international community and world.  They were also strong Western allies.  So when the people no longer feared the para-state security apparatus that Ben Ali and Mubarak had created, it was easier to force them out of the country.

Libya was the next in the chain, particularly given that it sits right between Egypt and Tunisia.  Unrest had spread to many countries, but you could tell Libya would be next.  The only problem is that Gaddafi would never step down.  He has less to lose than Ben Ali and Mubarak did.  Better yet, he never tried to maintain a veil of legitimacy to deal with the rest of the world.  People know he’s a brutal authoritarian ruler and they engaged him anyway.  That they are now saying “OMGz What are you doing to your people?” is really a farce.  Further, the internal structures and institutions of Libya are different to Tunisia and Egypt in that Gaddafi did his best to marginalise the military to prevent a coup, so it’s little wonder many in the military have defected, play the tribes off against each other and therefore keep the people subjugated.

There is this point you will find in all these uprisings where the reports you read will cause fear.  You can see the videos of what is happening in the street, read the twitter feeds giving on-the-ground accounts and then you read the news reports.  There is that point where you fear for the people and think, maybe, just maybe, their momentum is finished and the State may now crack down, hard.  Your first thought is that there will be blood.  There was that moment in Egypt, but the protesters made one final push, with the help of the military, and Mubarak was gone.  In Libya, there was that moment exact same moment, but unlike in Egypt, the protesters in Libya faced far heavier repression.  The Egyptian security forces would try to run down demonstrators in the street but the army never opened fired on demonstrators.  The servants of the Libyan state shot protesters dead.  In dozens.  Indiscriminately.  With RPG’s and bullets all too often, aimed at the head.

It is not hard to see the lies and great efforts the regime in Libya has gone to in order to hide their brutality.  I watched a video just the other day, where a reporter went into a town recaptured by Gaddafi forces.  In the centre, the week before, there were 19 bodies that were buried.  These were people killed in the uprising.  The graves had been demolished, and apparently a bull dozer had been brought in to remove the bodies.  A coffin lay smashed open on the ground.  Relatively peaceful protests, as seen in Egypt, never had a chance.

I also do not think it is right to call what is going on a ‘civil war’.  The “rebels”, as they have been called in the media, have no organised army or weapons, except that which has been liberated from Gaddafi’s security forces.  What we are seeing is a continuing response to the brutality of the crackdown on an attempt at a relatively peaceful protest and revolution.  The people picked up guns liberated from the security forces and rushing to help protect others in neighbouring towns because it is their only choice.  Libya is in revolt.  For those who began the revolt, everything is on the line and if Gaddafi is able to reassert control over the country there will be a continuing, brutal repression against anyone who was involved.

Make no mistake about it.  People have disappeared.  The injured have been removed from hospitals, the young have been arrested and dissent has been crushed in many places.

Too many pessimists are already saying nothing good can come from these events.  I disagree.  Strongly.  I am optimistic about what these revolutions, if successful, will achieve.  As I pointed out earlier, the capacity for a people to stand up from a long period of subservience and humiliation to establish a new identity is inspiring.  It is a positive thing and may very well yield positive result.  But in saying that, you can never know with revolutions.  Uprisings, rebellions and revolutions are fickle creatures.  Often the question is not whether you will be successful against the forces of great evil, but whether or not you will become them yourself.  Those who start out fighting for honour, dignity, integrity and justice all too often end up becoming what they hate.  But this is not to say that revolutions should not be fought or attempted, it is just that you cannot know the future until you’re living in it.

“Yes, we can” turns deadly

7 10 2010

In the past, I wished upon a star that Obama’s election to the American presidency would pop the idealism cherry of a new generation.  I can’t help but noticed I missed something.  At least so far.

After Obama was elected, everyone was happy he wasn’t Bush.  And why not?  Bush was a tyrant.  Bad things deserved to happen to the nether regions of George Bush as some kind of karmic retribution for all the terrible things he did.  But what people fail to realise is that Obama has been no better.

And no, let me preface the following by saying that I really don’t care about Obama’s “socialism” or whatever else certain American demographics have falsely branded the guy with. (hint: the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” immediately spring to mind)

Seems like a good dose of “he isn’t Bush,” is more powerful than rohypnol.  After all, if Bush had carried out raids on anti-war activists, half the world would be up in arms.

As Cindy Sheehan wrote in a blog post for Al Jazeera,

“These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.

First of all, these US citizens have been long-time and devoted anti-war activists who organised an anti-war rally that was violently suppressed by the US police state in Minneapolis-St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Because the Minneapolis activists have integrity, they had already announced that they would do the same if the Democrats hold their convention there in 2012.

I have observed that it was one thing to be anti-Bush, but to be anti-war in the age of Obama is not to be tolerated by many people. If you will also notice, the only people who seem to know about the raids are those of us already in the movement. There has been no huge outcry over this fresh outrage, either by the so-called movement or the corporate media.

I submit that if George Bush were still president, or if this happened under a McCain/Palin regime, there would be tens of thousands of people in the streets to protest. This is one of the reasons an escalation in police state oppression is so much more dangerous under Obama – even now, he gets a free pass from the very same people who should be adamantly opposed to such policies.

Secondly, I believe because the raids happened to basically ‘unsung’ and unknown, but very active workers in the movement, that the coordinated, early morning home invasions were designed to intimidate and frighten those of us who are still doing the work. The Obama regime would like nothing better than for us to shut up or go underground and to quit embarrassing it by pointing out its abject failures and highlighting its obvious crimes.

Just look at how the Democrats are demonising activists who are trying to point out the inconvenient truth that the country (under a near Democratic tyranny) is sliding further into economic collapse, environmental decay and perpetual war for enormous profit.”

So, let’s just recap;

  • Bombing campaigns conducted inside allied country’s borders — yes, we can!
  • Continuation of Bush era legal doctrines to maintain government cover-ups — yes, we can!
  • Increased support for secret special forces groups to conduct extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan — yes, we can!
  • Extra-judicial executions of American citizens abroad– yes, we can!
  • Scaling up almost decade long war in developing country for access to resources (minerals) — yes, we can!
  • Declaration of “victory” in Iraq despite continued American presence — yes, we can!
  • Raids on anti-war activists for being anti-war — yes, we can!

Who knew the inspirational phrase, “yes, we can” would have such a downside?  Then I can’t imagine the world would be much safer with McCain leading America, either.  “No leaders” probably doesn’t seem like such an radical proposal for those across the pond.



Found this great article at The Superfluous Man discussing how Obama is no different from the average, big name political pundit, but also the inability for critiques from all corners of statist politics to grasp exactly this fact.

Why on earth wouldn’t he? He’s blowing hundreds of billions on the stimulus so that he and his political allies can fund pet projects, justify the exercise of greater influence and power over society and pass out government swag to friends, allies, and supporters. He’s doing the standard, normal thing for someone with political power to do – he’s just able to do more because of the circumstances he finds himself in.

He wants to raise taxes on higher income brackets? So does every other center-left politician cultivating his “friend of the people” persona. He wants to increase federal involvement in this or that sector of the economy? He’d be a bizarre anomaly if he was a major American politician who didn’t.

The same can be said of questions raised by faltering or disenchanted Obama supporters: Why hasn’t he shown interest in liberalizing drug laws? Why isn’t he renouncing the Bush era’s offenses against civil liberties and separation of powers? Why is he handing out wagonloads of boodle to big corporations?

Why would it be otherwise?

The problem D’Souza has- and that many conservative critics of Obama have, and that many liberal admirers of Obama have- is this: He thinks there must be some interesting, unusual, or complex explanation for what is actually entirely mundane, typical behavior with a mundane, typical explanation.

The conservative reaction to Obama’s programs are remarkably similar to the liberal reaction to George W. Bush, which also tended to ridiculously exaggerate the novelty of what Bush was doing by acting as if incremental changes building on established precedent were new and shocking.

The US Government goes for internet’s jugular

27 09 2010

This article was originally published by  I’ve reposted it here as a matter that needs urgent attention inside and outside the US.

The US government has decided that it has the right to take down content on any website in the world if a movie or recording studio complains about it.

The worldwide censorship programme will let the Justice Department seek US court orders against piracy websites anywhere in the world and shut them down through domain registration.

According to Wired the law has the backing of both republicans and democrats and is quite possibly the first time that the US has attempted to impose its quaint medieval legal system on the rest of the world.  It is certainly the first time that the US has ordered other nation states to obey the will of its own private companies.

Basically the only reason that the world has to listen is that the US has control of the domain registration system.

The law is called “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,” and as Wired points out it is the Holy Grail of intellectual-property enforcement.

If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court to for an injunction that would order a domain registrar or registry to stop resolving an infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to, for example, would get a 404 error.

It is being pushed by Orin Hatch who is a Republican from Utah who claims that this world wide wibble thing is a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property.

But whether the proposal would ever become law is unclear. For a start there will be a large number of foreign countries who will be leaning on the US to drop it. Wars have been fought for less and the world wide wibble is an important economic resource.

Hollywood has shown that it is quite prepared to blanket ban all filesharing sites on the basis that pirated material could be shared. A law like this would enable it to shut down internet access to any company which makes technology it does not approve of.

The fact that taxpayer money is being used to defend Hollywood against people who may not have any cash at all is another point. But the law could also be used to shut down Wikileaks on the basis that the material is copyrighted. The fact the site is hosted in foreign countries would not protect it.

The US has always been reluctant to give up its control of the internet, usually making the claim that it invented it. The fact that what it came up with is nothing like you see today does not matter to it. It now seems that US politicians are using it to prop up their entertainment industry’s sick business model.

Our bet is that if the law is enacted then it will push other governments to set up a rival internet structure without the US.  After all you can’t have a system of taxation or legal repression without representation.  Where have we heard that before?

Read the original here

The truth is out

15 06 2010

(CNN) — U.S. military officials and geologists have determined that the mineral deposits in Afghanistan are worth nearly $1 trillion, the Pentagon said Monday.

Vast supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold, all with worldwide technological applications, are scattered over the country, according to the Defense Department.

But officials caution that they won’t be easy to extricate and that it will take years to turn this newfound mineral wealth into actual revenue.

“It’s not a quick win,” the U.S. Geological Survey’s Jack Medlin said at a Pentagon briefing Monday.

Pentagon and State Department officials acknowledged that extraction efforts are challenged by remote locations, a weak infrastructure, a dearth of heavy vehicles and equipment, and a strong insurgent presence.

First they came for the terrorists, then they came to rip up the earth and claim someone else’s wealth.  The spectre of neo-colonialism raises its ugly head.  Empires trade Iraqi’s for oil and Afghani’s for minerals.  Anyone who suspected that the American government was going to cease and desist from its swaray across the world,has been misguided.  It may come in the form of ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ but Americans are going to be in Afghanistan for decades.

The new boss turns out to be the same as the old boss…

28 07 2009

Only smarter.  To remind everyone that I’m still around and not actually dead, I thought I’d repost sections from an editorial available at wikileaks looking into the actions of Mr Obama since the beginning of his presidency.  Although it’s a little old, it does it’s bit to skewer the notion that any politician can be a heralded a messiah without consequences.  Obama may be doing some things ‘right’ the eyes of millions, but his behaviour regarding powers obtained under the Bush administration betrays a certain something about what else we can expect.

If the last eight years have taught anything, it is that no rational person would listen to or take seriously anything Dick Cheney and his Lowry-like followers have to say. That they’re motivated by everything other than the truth when criticizing Obama only bolsters that conclusion. But their ill motives and unbroken history of deceit doesn’t mean that they’re wrong in this case. And as much as one might prefer not to acknowledge it, it is becoming undeniably clear that — at least in the realm of civil liberties, executive power and core Constitutional rights — Lowry’s description of Obama’s “three-step maneuver” is basically accurate, and Cheney’s fear-mongering lament that Obama is undoing his Terrorism policies is basically false.

  • * * * *

Consider three key episodes from the last week just standing alone. On Friday, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer use the Bush-identified label “enemy combatants” as a ground for detaining Terrorist suspects, an announcement that generated headlines suggesting a significant change from the prior administration. But the following day, after reviewing the legal brief the administration filed (.pdf) setting forth its actual position regarding presidential powers of detention, here is how The New York Times’s William Glaberson accurately described what was really done:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term “enemy combatant” as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.
But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

Bush’s asserted power to detain as “enemy combatants” even those people who were detained outside of a traditional “battlefield” — rather than charge them with crimes — was one of the most controversial of the last eight years. Yet the Obama administration, when called upon to state their position, makes only the most cosmetic and inconsequential changes — designed to generate headlines misleadingly depicting a significant reversal (“Obama drops ‘enemy combatant’ label”) — while, in fact, retaining the crux of Bush’s extremist detention theory.

Or consider the new policies of transparency that Obama announced during his first week in office, ones that prompted lavish praise from most civil libertarians (including me). When it comes to a civil liberties restoration, few things are more important than drastically scaling back the Bush adminstration’s endless reliance on frivolous national-security-based “secrecy” claims as a weapon for hiding virtually everything the Government does. Excessive secrecy was the linchpin of most of the Bush abuses.

Last year, several privacy groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, became alarmed at what appeared to be an emerging, new Draconian international treaty governing intellectual property, the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As Wired’s Dave Kravets reported, the treaty as negotiated by the Bush administration — government summaries of which were leaked to and posted on Wikileaks — “would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers’ communications.”

Despite the fact that drafts of the treaty have been leaked; that the terms have nothing to do with national security; and that the agreement was being circulated among 27 different nations, the Bush administration — typically enough — rejected FOIA requests for documents pertaining to the treaty (.pdf) last January on multiple grounds, including “national security.” Based on Obama’s new pledges of transparency and new FOIA policies, EFF and others re-submitted the FOIA request last month. But in a March 10 letter (.pdf), they received a virtually identical response, this time from Obama’s Chief FOIA Officer in the Office of the Trade Representative:


There may or may not be legitimate reasons under the law to withhold drafts of this IP treaty, but the Bush-mimicking claim that doing so is justified “in the interest of national security” is, as Kravets wrote, “stunning.” And it’s hard to imagine many things more patently inconsistent with the fanfare over expanded “transparency” during Obama’s first week.

Finally, consider Obama’s headline-generating announcement earlier this week that he would “limit” the use of presidential signing statements, one of Bush’s principal instruments for literally ignoring the law. That announcement generated much celebration among Obama supporters, such as this poetic pronouncement by a front-page writer at Daily Kos:

All hail the U.S. Constitution. It seems to be coming back to life through some vigorous resuscitation.

Yet two days later — literally — Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill and appended to it a signing statement claiming that he had the Constitutional authority to ignore several of its oversight provisions. There is a very strong argument to make, grounded in clear Supreme Court precedent, that some of those provisions are actually unconstitutional, which would make the use of signing statements for those provisions probably proper. But at least some of those provisions which Obama declared invalid are, at worst, of arguable validity and, more accurately, grounded in strong judicial precedent regarding Congressional power. The broad powers Obama asserted for himself in that signing statement are clearly at odds with the pretty-worded policy he issued days earlier whereby he “promised to take a modest approach when using the statements”; to use them only to challenge provisions he notified Congress in advance he believes are unconstitutional; and to issue them “based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.”

Those are episodes just from the last week. It’s to say nothing of the series of events that preceded last week that shocked many Bush critics and outraged virtually all civil libertarians, including the Obama administration’s embrace of the most radical version of the “state secrets” privilege; the claim that detainees in Bagram and other dark American prisons around the world have no rights of any kind to challenge their detention; the pressure exerted on Britain to keep evidence of torture concealed; and the extraordinary efforts undertaken to block judicial rulings on whether the Bush administration broke the law in how it spied on Americans. It’s true that there have been some bright spots — the release of some of the long-concealed OLC memos; the order that the CIA no longer interrogate detainees outside of the scope of the Army Field Manual; the indictment of the last “enemy combatant” on American soil; the directive that Guantanamo be closed and that the International Red Cross be given access to all detainees — but many of those steps are preliminary and symbolic and have become quickly overshadowed by the far more substantial embraces of Bush’s executive power theories.


Read the rest here.

Agorist response to a Libertarian criticism

5 06 2009

As an Agorist, I found it curious when today I checked Strike-the-Root to find linked from it an article by a libertarian arguing that the central tenet of Agorism as to the power of counter economics is ridiculous.  Where the author agrees in principle, they disagree in application, which is fair enough except that disagreement is based on slightly confused logic.  So I thought I’d take a stab at answering it.

Despite my broad agreement with much of the underlying philosophy, I find this chain of events ludicrous – and I am not using the word lightly.  Let us consider one of the largest black markets in the world, the market for illegal drugs, which has been thriving for decades.  Has this resulted in market demand for protection agencies to replace the government?  Um, no.  It has resulted in exactly the opposite – a strengthening of the monopoly provider of security and law.  It has given us the militarization[sic] of policy, legalized[sic] theft via civil asset forfeiture, and a well-funded DEA.

To this I ask how, exactly, has all that increase in government power, oppression and regulation actually had any effect on the growth of the drug trade?  Has the state actually grown stronger from it’s regulations?

The answer lies in the critique itself where the author points out that the market for illegal drugs has been thriving for decades.  Specifically the part about thriving for decades.  All that regulation, all the militarisation of police forces to combat the thriving drug trade has failed, and each time a political candidate stands up to announce a new approach and more funding to eliminate the illegal drug market, it fails.  On the surface we see an emboldening of law enforcement but without result; still the illegal market in drugs grows.  What has occurred is that there is more waste to enforce increasingly powerless regulations.  Then there’s the net effect of housing, clothing, feeding all those growers, dealers and users who get arrested.  More waste.  And yet the black market continues to operate and grow.

Government has grown more oppressive, sure.  I agree.  But appears that it has not grown stronger as it is fundamentally unable to totally enforce its restrictions against the drug trade.

However the authors fundamental error lies in the scope of the analogy used to support the assertion.  That is the assumption that one area of the black market, in this case the illegal drugs market, will itself bring the state to collapse.  This is not the Agorist proposition.  The Agorist proposition is that the collective growth of every kind of black market that will bring revolution, each working to mutually benefit the other, building counter institutions and causing the government to waste itself into collapse.  Of course one sector of the counter economy isn’t going to bring an end to the state.

A more accurate example of counter economics at work is that of music piracy.  Analysing this social phenomenon, we see counter economics in action and its particular effect on a oppressive institution; the trundling music corporate behemoth.  After all, there are many areas and perspectives involved in music piracy; p2p filesharing, torrent filesharing, file transfers through email, file sharing through instant messengers, uploads to myspace, youtube, the abundances of CD burners and even lending a CD to your friend (not to mention the argument by some that playing music over the radio is piracy) are all regarded as illegal practices but each confers some positive benefit to the parties involved.  Case in point; they are counter economic.  Music piracy has since challenged the intellectual property monopoly and rattled the foundations of music corporations while thousands of entrepreneurs world wide have arisen to take advantage of this kind of viral distribution.  It is not simply one area of music piracy challenging the corporations, but every area.  Entrepreneurs have arisen to fill demand and innovate on existing infrastructure such as those responsible for that Tortuga-esque virtual pirate haven ThePirateBay, or the likes of Trent Reznor and Saul Williams, these individuals and all those taking advantage of the service are helping to effect change.  Funnily enough, even the most avid supporters of intellectual property may download music, or at least their children may download music, which turns out-spoken friends of the music corporation into enemies.

So keeping in mind a sense of scale, we need to look at the entirety of a counter economy in any given country in order to decide it’s effectiveness.  If we look at America, for example, we know the drug trade exists and we know it is perverse, because most of us know someone involved in it in some capacity and we hear about arrests in the media.  However we also need to consider how many individuals cheat on their taxes, how large the prostitution industry is, how many labourers, craftsman, or tradespeople work for cash — how many people are engaging in activities where they are not directly contributing to the coffers of the US government but still provide productive, even positive benefit.  We also need to consider how much waste there currently is.  War is costly and the American government fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proxy war in Somalia, assisting the Pakistani military against the Taliban and agitating for war against Iran.  There’s a few trillions of dollars.  Throw in all the money going towards the Pentagon, militarised police force, the CIA and FBI to protect against foreign and domestic terrorism while including the trillion dollar bail outs to industry, we can add many more trillions to the list.  Then consider the effect of all those unwise social programs created by representatives simply to garnish votes and we can add another trillion.  Factor in the inevitability of the printing press being looked to in order to ‘fix’ the white economy and the hole the American government has dug itself what seems to be a gaping hole while the counter economy continues to grow.

Tell me again why counter economics is ridiculous?

Imagine; revolution sans violent overthrow, sans leaders, sans reliance on political institutions.

So in answer to the authors closing statement,

Does anyone really think we can win such a war against the most powerful military in the world, on its home ground?



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.