Showing posts with label Police State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police State. Show all posts

12 April 2009

US Government Preparing for BAD TIMES to come! The Bail Out Isn't Accepted by the Public & the U.S. is Bankrupt! A Social Revolutiion Coming.




LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Posted by counterspiNYC at Sunday, April 12, 2009 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

27 March 2009

The Economics of Snooping on Internet Traffic.

March 25, 2009, 2:30pm

Update | 2:07 p.m. Details of the Cox and Comcast approaches modified.

Kurt Dobbins, the chief technical officer of Arbor Networks, has what he sees as a very good reason to use a machine — which his company makes — that can see every word and every picture people send and receive over their Internet service provider: Internet service providers could offer a complex menu of price plans, as cellphone companies do. He predicts you will soon see many plans that impose usage caps in peak times, but unlimited use off peak.

That thought may well be red meat to the many people who think the Internet should always be unfettered by any limits.

Mr. Dobbins invited himself over for coffee recently, not to talk about Internet pricing exactly, but to defend the honor of this technology called deep packet inspection.

There are a lot of other things deep packet inspection can do that are perceived as rather creepy. It is great for spies and secret police, who want to know when people read or write about certain topics. It can identify people who send copyrighted files and block people from using certain programs, like BitTorrent. Advertisements can be shown based on what sites Internet users visit. And it can help Internet providers degrade the service of rival offerings, such as voice calling or video over the Internet.

Tim Berners-Lee, one of the creators of the World Wide Web, recently said in a speech to the British House of Lords that deep packet inspection is the equivalent of opening people’s mail.
The Free Press, an advocacy group, published a report on the subject last week, warning that the adoption of deep packet inspection “will open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that could spell disaster for the free market online.”

Mr. Dobbins said that he wished the technology had a different name. “Deep packet inspection conjures up all kinds of evil images,” he said, frustrated that what he helped invent 10 years ago has earned such a bad reputation.

Arbor isn’t in the Big Brother business, he insisted. Its technology doesn’t read the content of what people send and receive, he said; it just analyzes how much bandwidth they use and the type of information they are sending — e-mail, video, Web pages or whatever.

It is like looking at the stamp and addresses on the outside of mail, not opening the envelopes, he said.

It’s not quite so simple, however. Mr. Dobbins explained that Arbor’s machines don’t scan for copyrighted songs, for example. But they do identify packets being sent by peer-to-peer file trading programs, and they can send them to machines made by other companies meant to identify copyrighted content.

I’m not sure this is going to reassure Mr. Berners-Lee and other critics of deep packet inspection. Arbor, to continue the postal imagery, is like a person who sorts through the mail looking for suspicious packages, handing them to another person to open.

What about the business Arbor says it is in: helping Internet providers reduce costs and increase revenue by adjusting their pricing plans to the way each customer uses the Internet?

Mr. Dobbins said Internet providers in the United States should follow the lead of Plusnet, a British I.S.P. that uses Arbor equipment to offer various service plans. The cheapest plan costs 11.99 pounds ($17.67) per month. Use is capped at 10 gigabytes a month, except for unlimited use between midnight and 8 a.m. In addition, traffic is divided into seven categories, each with a different priority. At the top are fee-based services, like video on demand movies and voice over Internet phone calls. At the bottom are downloading of files from peer-to-peer networks and Usenet newsgroups.

The company offers two separate upgraded options, each at 19.99 pounds ($29.45) per month. One has unlimited bandwidth, but similar slowdowns for downloads. Another “pro” plan has a 15-gigabyte-per-month peak limit, but promises priority treatment for downloads and other sorts of traffic. That plan also will move traffic for online games to the head of the line, because a split second sometimes can make a difference in the outcome of a fast-twitch war game.

The point of all this is to shift as much of the heavy bandwidth use to off-peak times. Most of the costs of running an Internet provider are fixed; customers pay whether they are using the network or not. But I.S.P.’s do have to invest to expand the maximum capacity of their networks to accommodate peak usage.

How much of an expense all this extra downloading actually costs is a bit of a debate. Dave Burstein, the editor of DSL Prime, says it isn’t more than the equivalent of a dollar or two per user per month. That’s hardly enough, he says, for Internet providers in this country, which have very wide profit margins, to cry poor. (In Britain, the marginal costs are higher and competition has lowered margins, he said.) But that is not keeping Arbor from selling its products as a way to cut costs.

So far a few Internet providers in the United States, including Time Warner Cable, are just exploring bandwidth caps and price tiers. More common has been an effort to use techniques, including deep packet inspection, to manage the congestion at peak times. Comcast was slapped by the Federal Communications Commission for blocking some BitTorrent file sharing without proper disclosure.

Now Comcast is using a system that will slow down the connections of heavy users at peak times, regardless of what they are doing online. Cox Communications is using the sort of approach Arbor recommends, giving priority at peak times to some uses, like voice calling and streaming media, while relegating others, like file downloads, to the slow lane. Cox’s limits apply only when customers are uploading, not downloading, informatin.

On one level letting the urgent traffic go first makes a lot of sense. But Ben Scott, the policy director of the Free Press, said that Internet providers, like Cox, shouldn’t be allowed to differentiate between different uses of the Internet.

“Some customers will value what they see as low priority as high priority,” he said. I asked Mr. Scott what he thought about the approach of Plusnet, which lets consumers pay more if they want higher priority given to their game traffic and downloads. Surprisingly, he had no complaints.

“If you said to me, the consumer, ‘You can choose what applications to prioritize and which to deprioritize, and, oh, by the way, prices will change as a result of how you do this,’ I don’t have a problem with that,” he said.

If this sort of approach does in fact satisfy the critics, I think we are very likely to see Internet providers move to more multiple price tiers, using deep packet inspection to juggle different users and quotas. And in the process we may very well expand a technical infrastructure that has the potential to assist those that want to snoop on our electronic communications.



LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Posted by counterspiNYC at Friday, March 27, 2009 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

21 March 2009

How Police State is America?

Posted by: ShiftShapers
Warning: Anyone who takes this blog seriously will be shot. Anyone who does not take it seriously will be buried alive by a Mitsubishi bulldozer. YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE This blog is not approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Proceed at your own risk.
Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:20:00 -0500

Is America Already a Police State?

An incomplete overview of police state legislation, domestic military deployment, and other fascist developments in the United States

After writing two recent articles covering the emerging global revolt, neither of which examined the coinciding emergence and growth of the global police state, particularly in America, I felt it was necessary to briefly evaluate the elite’s repressive response to the coming insurrection of their long-coveted slaves. This article will focus on the developing police state in the United States. An analysis of international police state developments is beyond the scope of this article and a subject deserving another article of its own, if not an entire series.

In the last eight years we have seen a slew of police state legislation, to the point that it has often been hard to keep up. By now, most take the Department of Homeland Security for granted, but the implications of its emergence should not be ignored. We’ve all, of course, heard of the PATRIOT Act*, though by now it is in the back of our minds, having been normalized in the discourse of the mainstream, corporate media. A few remember the ‘continuity of government’ measures implemented during 9/11 (though few are aware that they were never revoked and instead left in place indefinitely). Many haven’t forgotten the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Still, many Americans have lost track of the legislative developments, or assumed that the end of the Bush era meant the end of the era of police state preparations, which it obviously did not.

*With many controversial PATRIOT Act provisions set to expire later this year, conservative GOP members of the House are mobilizing to reauthorize them.

You Can Be Declared An Enemy Combatant

Where to start? There’s the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, which grants the president the power to “identify American citizens as ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ and detain them indefinitely without charge,” as Heather Wokusch reports. “The vague criteria for being labeled an enemy combatant (taking part in ‘hostilities against the United States’) don’t help either,” writes Wokusch. Senator Patrick Leahy called the legislation “flagrantly unconstitutional.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that “the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives the president absolute power to decide who is an enemy of our country and to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime.” According to the ACLU’s MCA fact sheet:

This law removes the Constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for persons the president designates as unlawful enemy combatants. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners more than four years without charges, with no end in sight.

Perhaps more disturbing still is “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” (H.R. 1955). As Jessica Lee reports for The Indypendent,

Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.

Scott Thill reports for AlterNet:

H.R. 1955 defines “homegrown terrorism” and “violent radicalization” nebulously; the former is merely “the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives,” while the latter means “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change.” Ideologically based violence, in turn, is defined as “the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious or social beliefs.”

Sounds fair enough, until you start crunching the language and come to the realization that practically anyone, on any given day, could fit the description. Which is vague on purpose, as one realizes the farther one digs.

“Detention Facilities” & the “Rapid Development of New Programs”

These developments are particularly disturbing when taken in the context of the detention facilities being constructed in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who contracted Halliburton subsidiary KBR for the job. These detention facilities are being created under the auspices of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component of DHS. The two expressed intents for these new camps is to deal with an immigration crisis, and to house “domestic terrorists” and their supporters. This must be understood within the context of the Mayday 2006 immigrant uprising as well as the Green Scare, in which earth and animal liberation activists are being defined as, and charged as, domestic “terrorists.”

As Peter Dale Scott reports for The Center for Research on Globalization:

For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North’s controversial Rex-84 “readiness exercise” in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary “refugees,” in the context of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States. North’s activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.

“Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters,” says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military’s account of its activities in Vietnam. “They’ve already done this on a smaller scale, with the ‘special registration’ detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo.”

Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for “suspension of the Constitution” and “declaration of martial law.” The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida’s deputy, John Brinkerhoff.

In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government.

Scott also writes that the contract “calls for preparing for ‘an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs‘ in the event of other emergencies, such as ‘a natural disaster.’ The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.”

Just exactly does “the rapid development of new programs” mean? What sort of new programs?

These detention facilities also fit into ICE’s Operation Endgame, for which other detention facilities exist, such as the Northwest Detention Center, run by the GEO Group. As one anti-ICE activist wrote:

ICE has regional detention centers around the country (and in Cuba) and contracts the maintenance of the detention facilities with prison and detention corporations. The largest of such corporations are GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America. GEO Group runs the infamous Guantanamo Bay. Wells Fargo is one of GEO Group’s largest shareholders. Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Cheney’s Halliburton, also has ties to GEO Group. These for-profit companies, with dozens of facilities around the world, benefit from tearing apart families and locking up people. The more individuals in a detention center, the more profits for the corporation.

Under ICE, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) is executing Operation Endgame, a plan to round up and deport all undocumented people (12 million people) by 2012.

On top of these developments, Michel Chossudovsky of The Center for Research on Globalization recently reported that “a bill entitled the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress in January. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations.” He continues:

The stated purpose of the “national emergency centers” is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

There has been virtually no press coverage of HR 645. These “civilian facilities” on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities. Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply. HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.

The proposed internment camps should be seen in relation to the broader process of militarization of civilian institutions. The construction of internment camps predates the introduction of HR 645 (Establishment of Emergency Centers) in January 2009. There are, according to various (unconfirmed) reports, some 800 FEMA prison camps in different regions of the U.S. Moreover, since the 1980s, the US military has developed “tactics, techniques and procedures” to suppress civilian dissent, to be used in the eventuality of mass protests (United States Army Field Manual 19-15 under Operation Garden Plot, entitled “Civil Disturbances” was issued in 1985).

Domestic Troop Deployments, Civil Unrest, & Obama’s Police State

The Bush era is over, officially, but many mistakenly believe that Bush-era police state activity is as well, which is it not (nor did it begin with Bush in the first place). Many of the actions undertaken by George W. Bush to empower himself and the police state remain active tools in the Obama administration, and how Obama himself will approach them remains to be seen. Many remain hopeful, yet at least as many are disillusioned by the actions of Obama thus far, and no longer cling to a messianic view our new president. But as a wise man once said, you don’t stab someone with a nine-inch blade, pull it out three inches, and call it progress (or in this case, “hope” and “change”).

Even as the glorious age of Obama and the thousand years of peace it will bring unfolds before us like a lotus flower made of rainbow starlight, new blossoms of repression continue to emerge from the decomposing muck of the Bush administration. As Marjorie Cohn reports, newly revealed Bush-era memos “reveal a concerted strategy to cloak the president with power to override the Constitution.” She continues:

The memos provide “legal” rationales for the president to suspend freedom of speech and press; order warrantless searches and seizures, including wiretaps of US citizens; lock up US citizens indefinitely in the United States without criminal charges; send suspected terrorists to other countries where they will likely be tortured; and unilaterally abrogate treaties. According to the reasoning in the memos, Congress has no role to check and balance the executive. That is the definition of a police state.

Memos and legislation aside, one of the more disturbing developments in the emerging and already present American police state is the deployment of troops, as of October 1st of last year, on American soil, with the expressed purpose of quelling domestic revolt. The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which is now deployed within the United States, “has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle,” according to Gina Cavallaro of the Army Times.

As the Army Times initially reported, “this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”

As Bill Van Auken reports, “for the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.”

Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson of The Washington Post report that “the U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011” under the guise of assisting “state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.”

Bill Van Auken writes:

In the 2007 Pentagon spending bill it inserted a measure to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to clear the way for the domestic deployment of the military in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or “other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”

The provision granted the president sweeping new powers to impose martial law by declaring a “public emergency” for virtually any reason, allowing him to deploy troops anywhere in the US and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of state governors in order to “suppress public disorder.”

The provision was subsequently repealed by Congress as part of the 2008 military appropriations legislation, but the intent remains. Given the sweeping powers claimed by the White House in the name of the “commander in chief” in a global war on terror—powers to suspend habeas corpus, carry out wholesale domestic spying and conduct torture—there is no reason to believe it would respect legal restrictions against the use of military force at home.

Not only are these domestically deployed troops being trained in the use of “crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them” and “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control,” but according to the Army Times, they are also “working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.” In other words, the Army is now in the clear-cutting business!

The ACLU has demanded information from the U.S. government regarding “reports that an active military unit has been deployed inside the U.S. to help with ‘civil unrest’ and ‘crowd control’ – matters traditionally handled by civilian authorities,” filing a FOIA request.

Then, on top of these domestic deployments, there is the report entitled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development” from the U.S. War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. As Jim Meyers of Newsmax.com reports, the report “discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis” and “warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a ‘violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States’ that could be provoked by ‘unforeseen economic collapse’ or ‘loss of functioning political and legal order.’”

John Crudele reports for the New York Post that the Pentagon is “ready to handle ‘unforeseen economic collapse’ and the ‘rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US.’” Mike Sunnucks reports for the Phoenix Business Journal that the “new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.”

Nathan Freier, recently retired Army lieutenant colonel, War College professor, and author of the report, writes:

Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order … An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.

DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.

As Jim Meyers reports, “the 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. But a 1994 Defense Department Directive allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage.”

This is the Endgame

Even the elite are on edge. Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has warned of riots within the United States. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has also warned of “riots and unrest.”

Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot, and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, has identified a series of key steps would-be dictators take to close down a more or less “open” society, a blueprint for turning representative republics into outright fascist dictatorships. These steps were present in the development every fascist state in modern history, and every society that displayed all of them eventually became a fascist dictatorship. All are now present in America.

No discussion of the emerging American police state would be complete without a mention of last year’s Republican and Democratic National Conventions. The RNC 8 are being charged with “Conspiracy to Riot in the Furtherance of Terrorism,” and are literally being held accountable for the actions of other individuals. For more on the conventions, check out the documentaries Ground Noise & Static and Terrorizing Dissent, both available online.

Recent years have also seen the emergence of the Green Scare, targeting earth and animal liberationists and labeling them as “terrorists” under such draconian legislation as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). While environmental activists are receiving higher sentences than al Qaeda operatives, the FBI also arrested four animal rights activists on “terrorism” charges under AETA, for chalking, leafleting, and wearing masks while protesting. More recently, the feds arrested 2 animal rights activists in Utah and are charging them as “terrorists” under AETA for releasing mink. The industries of exploitation, in other words, are actively co-conspiring with the government to create legislation designed to maintain the status quo and protect their “right” to exploit and torture animals for profit.

Even MTV ran warnings of the impending police state, and it appears that YouTube has censored and removed them. I was able to find one version still on YouTube that has not (yet) been removed:

That corporate pimps and whores like MTV are warning of such things, and that YouTube is censoring it, speaks to the gravity of the situation. The elite are fracturing and factionalizing.

Taken all together, these developments point towards the presence and continual emergence of an American police state. But this is only the United States. All over the world, similar developments are taking place. In virtually all “developed” countries, the surveillance state is steadily on the rise. In America, there is also the North American Union (NAU) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which aim to establish a common market and dissolve trade and security barriers (as opposed to the free movement of human beings) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

Stephen Lendman describes the SPP as “a tri-national agreement, below the radar, for greater economic, political, and security integration with secret business and government working groups devising binding policies with no public knowledge or legislative debate.” “In short,” he continues, “it’s a military-backed corporate coup d’etat against the sovereignty of three nations, their populations and legislative bodies. It’s a dagger through the heart of democratic freedom in all three, yet the public is largely unaware of what’s happening.”

We would be mistaken to believe that these tendencies towards fascism are the result of specific individuals and administrations, just as we would be mistaken to believe that the State will ever sanction any form of dissent and resistance that truly threatens their status quo. The exigencies of centralized authority and power are systemic, rather than personal. The beauty of Obama is that the higher people put their hopes in him, the greater will be their ultimate feeling of betrayal and disappointment. This, perhaps, will spur the populous towards true direct action and self-liberation.

It Is Time

To answer the question posited in the title of this article: my conclusion is that—considering the developments reviewed in this article—yes, America is already a police state. For now, it remains one that prefers to pacify the population through the use of coerced consent and propaganda, but it will remain so only so long as the populous allows themselves to continue to be enslaved and exploited, their land bases destroyed for the profit of the few. In the end, they will resort to killing us. Mark my words. They have done it in the past, and they continue to do it elsewhere today. Soon, they will do it in America.

As the global resistance continues to unfold, so will the repressive responses of the State apparatus. We can expect escalated attacks against our communities of resistance as we escalate our revolt against this culture of death and destruction.

We must develop relationships based upon affinity and communities capable of withstanding the onslaught of the repressive mechanisms of the State and transnational capital. We must develop the networks and connections necessary to survive the endgame of the elite’s psychotic obsession with total authority, power, and control. We must free ourselves from the mechanisms of dependency that keep us suckling at the teat of systemic global ecocide. We must establish autonomous communities of active resistance and stand in firm defiance against the destruction of our world and the precariousness of our lives. The best time was yesterday. The second best time is now.

Nathan Coe is a guerrilla journalist and rebel insurgent residing in the mountains of Southwest Colorado, who also works with SW(A)RM, subMedia, and Indymedia. He can be contacted at autonomousresistance@riseup.net or via his blog at ShiftShapers.gnn.tv

Disclaimer: Statements and opinions expressed in articles published on this site are those of the authors and not of the staff or editors of GNN, unless otherwise stated.

Posted by counterspiNYC at Saturday, March 21, 2009 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)