Blow That Whistle!

Daniel Ellsberg is widely attributed with bringing about the end of the decades long Vietnam war and simultaneously bringing down a sitting president, the only president to resign from office in what was then just under 200 years of American history. A war that lasted 20 years, four US presidents, a war that killed countless souls in the millions, a war that continued through overwhelming unpopularity in an extremely war weary society. And a president of the United States, "the most powerful man in the world", and maybe more powerful than any president when you consider the excesses of power for he which he was to be impeached. In fact, Daniel Ellsberg was the target of that now infamous Watergate scandal, the scandal to affix all scandals. At the time Ellsberg was reportedly named by Nixon as "the most dangerous man in America" and Nixon was so insecure about this danger that he had his "plumbers" break into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist looking for information to use against him. How in the world could an average man, who is in no way physically intimidating or violently threatening, become the most dangerous man in America?

America has historically enjoyed the unofficial title of "the greatest military power in the world" since the end of WWII, and no other power in the world has seriously considered an invasion of our North American stronghold. And our propaganda also creates a fortress, a fortress of ideas, designed to keep out unwanted influences, as was the case with the long cold war campaign against communism. Both of these forces have historically worked hand in glove to perpetuate the military industrial complex and our seemingly endless chain of needless conflict that only succeeds in creating and sustaining a near universal hegemony, a global schoolyard bully. It almost defies logic and credulity to suggest that any one man has the power to stop such a powerful entity, whether a US president or the Pentagon and their many war contractors. With millions of Americans taking part in the anti-war campaign, many putting their lives and freedoms on the line in countless demonstrations and actions across the country, the one action that had the most impact was as simple as transferring some files. Well, it wasn't that simple, Ellsberg had to copy the several thousand documents known as the Pentagon papers the old fashioned way, one at a time.

But in our modern world of fast paced technological wizardry it's truly remarkable how much information can be leaked in the time it takes to illegally download the latest Lady Gaga release. And in fact, that's exactly what Bradley Manning (allegedly) did, sort of. If the allegations are true, Bradley Manning, a 23 year old analyst in the US Army, while stationed in Iraq in 2009 and 2010, with access to a confidential government internet network, passed over a half a million secret documents to a personal computer using a CD-RW from which he had erased Lady Gaga tracks to free up storage space. Some of these documents may have also been transferred through a wireless network to an un-secure location, but many of them passed completely under the radar as an ordinary compact disc. Though Bradley Manning has been held in military detention without trial for 18 months, he has been declared guilty by the commander in chief, and is widely recognized by supporters as the source of the leaked documents. Once again, a single, average, non-threatening, non-violent individual is the most dangerous man in America. And this time, to make for an irony rich story, he is an openly gay man who came out to his commanders during the legacy of 'Don't ask, Don't tell'.

Why is information so threatening to such powerful people and even the US government itself? If something as simple as a computer file can cause so much damage to the legitimacy and integrity of our government, it's no wonder we live in such a state of Homeland Insecurity. One of Bradley Mannings many charges is "aiding the enemy," but if blowing the whistle on the unconstitutional behavior of our government officials happens to aid the enemy, the true fault lies with those corrupt officials. And when you begin to look at the information leaked it becomes clear that there is an altogether different war going on along side the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an information war. And in this war, information is the only weapon and the only shield, and our ignorance of this wars existence, in an information war, is the equivalent of not bearing arms. And when you don't know there's an information war going on, you don't even know  if you're in it, or which side you're on, you don't even know what information is being kept from you or why. You might assume the enemy is some evil bad guy over there somewhere, when in fact the enemy just might be you. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote "It is said that  if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

Though I cannot know exactly who has declared this war, nor on whom they have declared it, I believe that Bradley Manning is a hero in this world wide information war and I declare myself on his side, the side of truth and transparency, the side that believes and practices the use of sunlight as the greatest disinfectant. I declare myself on the side of Wikileaks and it's founder Julian Assange who believes that all intelligence should be open source and 100% accessible to all. I am on the side of John F. Kennedy who declared his intention to scatter the CIA to the four winds and I will work towards the goal of ALL intelligence apparatus to be completely dismantled and all secret information to be revealed in full. Our intelligence model was taken from the Russian and Nazi models during WWII and those military enemies justified our dark and shadowy underworld of secrecy that has created a moral blind spot for our nation in which crimes greater than any overt war crime, have consistently occurred and continue into the foreseeable future with absolute impunity. When this information war is finally over, the CIA, DIA, NSA, and so many other organizations will be but a pile of ruin, and in that ruin we will finally have the pieces of the puzzle whose complete picture will ultimately disintegrate any semblance of validity for this criminal empire, of , by, and for the 1%.

The basic systems of Checks and Balances in our government is nothing but a corrupt back scratching circle without that original promise of transparency, informing we the people to do our part to check our government. It has been largely due to our intelligence apparatus as well as the corruption of the FBI that we are being intentionally kept in the dark, and this has created the environment in which whistle blowers have become the only true check on our highest officials. Without Daniel Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers, how many more would have died in Vietnam? How much more damage would Nixon have gotten away with if he hadn't met up with this most dangerous adversary? Ultimately the Pentagon papers led to a new era of public skepticism about being led into wars on false information, an awareness that represents an unquantifiable victory for the people in this information war waged by our government. Bradley Manning is a hero to all of those who believe in transparency, who distrust power, who know their enemies all too well. Bradley Manning has done more for the greater good in his prison cell than Barack Obama has done, or will do, no matter how many more years we let him pretend to lead. 

And with the new National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and it's section on indefinite military detention of US citizens, we are all becoming Bradley Manning, we are all in this prison without trial, without transparency, without liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Now is the time for an army of Bradley Mannings, an army of whistle blowers, we need a lot more people considered to be as dangerous as Ellsberg and Manning by those who violate their oath to uphold the constitution as Nixon and Obama have done. We need a lot more ammo for the epic battle ahead, but our ammo is info. And if we are to fight this battle, if we are to put our life, liberty, and happiness on the line, we will declare our enemy, we will make it known that truth is on our side, and the day will soon come when our enemies are named and forever placed on the wrong side of history as the enemies of democracy itself. Those in the intelligence communities who have done little or no wrong, we compel you to come forward with your piece of the puzzle. We cannot guarantee your safety or freedom, we cannot promise you riches or power, we can only give you what your soul itself will soon cry out for: forgiveness. There may be no object of value that can compare to the redemption of your very soul.

President Obama, if you are half the man that Bradley Manning is you will free him immediately and honor him as the hero that he is for keeping his oath to uphold the constitution, may I remind you that you also took that oath.

Consensual Democracy

The flower of democracy has been ever so slowly unfolding over the last two thousand years, give or take. But once in a great while there is a burst of progress, bringing us into the light of a new era of democracy that quickly renders the old methods quaint. There is currently such a movement underway to bring democracy to new heights, or should we say new lows? Perhaps the towering "heights" of representative democracy are at the crux of the problems we face, democracy actually improves in quality when it gets lower to the ground where the people can access it. In a representative government you cannot access real power at all except through those so called representatives, who may not be very accessible themselves. And their accessibility may vary from one class to another, one person one vote just isn't good enough to get an audience with a senator.

At the heart of the direct democracy movement, now taking place largely under the umbrella of the 99%/Occupy Wall St. movement, lies the consensus process. This process is not new but it is becoming widely recognized as a positive alternative to representative democracy. Even those who are still deeply invested in the representative system and strongly identify with specific parties or politicians realize that the consensus process is far more true to the spirit of democracy. One reason why some can still have "Hope" for "Change" in the representative system, yet still actively participate in a direct democracy system is the obvious dilemma we all face with party politics. When you vote for a person you don't get to pick and choose which parts of their agenda you vote for, you get the whole package for better or worse. And that would be frustrating enough if we could trust them to do what they say they will do once they are elected.

Direct democracy is our next step, and perhaps our only hope to practice a true democracy on this planet. But the transition from representative democracy will not be a smooth one and we should be prepared for a great deal of turbulence. We went from having a king, a ruler, a monarch, to having a billion dollar ego-fest every other year to choose professional politicians to "represent" 'we the people' in a very small and closed power circuit. Besides the complete waste of time and money the unfortunate effect is that we have commodified our political world and handed it over to "professionals" who only see the value of the dollar and who represent no ones interest but their own family's financial well being. Though we can vote during election seasons, once politicians take office money is the only thing that sways them. Those with property, wealth, and power are the ones whose interests are being served, representative democracy is for sale.

Direct democracy on the other hand is something shared between consenting adults, it is a deeply philosophical and spiritual practice for many and must be approached with the utmost respect and consideration for the group and the process. When people come together to find their common ground there is a great deal of trust and openness required to create the atmosphere of inclusion and cooperation that draws the group in and exposes the heart of the matter, and hopefully brings forth the point of consensus. Approaching the group, therefore is like approaching a timid lover, whose mutual will you are prepared to woo into being. For many, approaching a group with an issue or agenda item can be a frustrating affair, they may see the group in general as being unreasonable, or the process as impractical. And though the group may actually be willing to embrace the idea, they might prefer the power point equivalent of dinner and a movie.

One cannot blame the group for being timid and even a little frigid, after all we've been through with "representative democracy" many of us feel abused, violated, and dare I say it, raped. After all, what is the opposite of consent? Career politicians are like drunk frat boys who will say anything at all to get into our pants and then do just the opposite once they have taken their prize. Women of the world may have noticed that they have more leverage with their man and their politician when the "polls" are open, and this is why it's a good idea to get a solid commitment before you give up the goods. And this is exactly the kind of unequal democracy we have practiced for far too long, where the majority of us are seduced by a slick talking walking ego who has no respect for us in the morning. This political courting pageant we call election season leaves the bulk of us so confused and disoriented that we feel as though someone slipped something into our drink and now we're waking up in the back of a strange van wondering what happened to our underwear.

It's equally understandable why many people approach the consensus process with little regard for the feelings and reaction of the group. We have been born into and fed a pure diet of "representative democracy" our entire lives, we are immersed into this world of ego-maniacs trying to control the planet. And to give them the benefit of the doubt we should try to recognize that these people are like soldiers who have never made love to a woman, only paid for prostitutes. For some in the party system they may even be like prisoners who have only had prison sex and now must learn how to relate in a world of equals who don't dominate one another as a matter of course. Needless to say, prisoners and rape victims make some pretty strange bed fellows, but all hope is not lost if we recognize these subtle dynamics and respond to one another as consciously and considerately as possible. This may be one of my more crude analogies, but for those of us who have been screwed by "representative democracy" our whole lives, it's unfortunately one of my more accurate analogies.

If there is an idea whose time has come, I believe it is this: Democracy can only exist between consenting adults, anything else is a violation of democracy. What is true for love is true for democracy.

An Army of 1%

"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world."
~Michael Bloomberg, New York City Mayor, 1%

As the birthplace of Occupy Wall Street, New York City has understandably been the focal point of the now world wide movement for change in our monetary/power structures. And the events that have unfolded there have become the general theme and narrative of the movements actual progress. To make things more interesting, the city's Chief Executive Officer (or CEO) is an actual member of the extremely exclusive 1%. Mayor Bloomberg proudly championed this group of over-privileged underdogs, because he simply has a soft spot for persecuted minorities, especially when they're all billionaires like him. And what a rich theme for this modern day fairy tale reminiscent of so many other historical clashes between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', it just wouldn't be much of a story without someone willing to play the villain and represent the haves, the 1%. And why should he care if he is destined to be on the wrong side of history, he's filthy stinking RICH! As long as there's a chance, he simply must thwart any change in his lifetime, so that his children and grandchildren can continue to burn up the planets resources to fuel the ongoing party called aristocracy, that's his role and he's only too happy to play the part.

Bloomberg was speaking at MIT in late November when he explained to the crowd why he didn't feel the need to run for president of the United States, he expressed his contentment with his humble position as mayor of New York City this way: "I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own state department, much to Foggy Bottoms annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have." Why would he refer to a police force as an "Army?" Are there not significant differences between a civilian peace keeping force and a military army, or standing army? In fact, a standing army that occupies our towns and cities is specifically forbidden by the constitution of the United States. But Bloomberg was not mistaken, just remarkably candid with his audience in revealing a new reality that has taken hold in the dark shadows of our collective ignorance. The police are in fact now standing armies in direct violation of the constitution, and this has never been more clear than when they are employed to violently beat and arrest those who are practicing their first amendment rights to free speech.

In the days following September 11, 2001, many new laws and practices were enacted as a result of anti-terrorism legislation that led to greater involvement in our urban and rural police departments by both intelligence and military officials and personnel. And with all of the bold and brutal attacks on the Bill of Rights through the duration of the Bush years, no one ever seriously considered repealing the Posse Comitatus Act restricting Military Personnel from carrying out a law enforcement role inside the United States territories. And though the Bush administration was guilty of holding U.S. citizens in military detention without trial in violation of Habeas Corpus, they made no attempt to completely abolish this most sacred of unalienable rights. So now, strangely, ten years later, Al Qaeda scattered, Bin Laden assassinated, the Iraq war over and the Afghan war on a slow burner, virtually every "representative" on Capital Hill voted in favor of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which does more to undermine our Bill of Rights and Constitution than ANYTHING that came out the of the Bush/Bin Laden era.

Perhaps Bush simply could not have gotten away with such a naked attack on the Constitution, though it's hard to believe they knew their limits. One thing is for sure, Obama has shown that most of his supporters are still so drunk on his first "Hope" and Change" campaign that they will let him get away with anything at all, even the obliteration of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. And Obama has shown that he has absolutely no respect at all for either of these documents or the people they are designed to protect. Though it is being widely reported that Obama has "promised to veto" this bill, his language and rationale are wholly incomplete and incompatible with constitutional law. Press Secretary James Carney relayed the presidents thoughts in this statement "Any Bill that challenges or constrains the presidents critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto." Shouldn't we be relying on the presidents understanding of constitutional law to protect our unalienable rights and the integrity of the constitution? Instead, we're relying on him to decide if he wants to give up any of the ill-gotten powers usurped by the previous administration, or he might decide that the small restrictions pertaining to military detention are worth the vast additional powers added to his imperial presidency.

So again, why now? Even if Obama can effectively saber rattle us into a war with Iran, the one the Neo-cons have been dreaming about for over a decade, there's never been a valid terrorism threat from Iran, and if we could link them to Al Qaeda it would have been done long ago. And though we have Fukushima and the BP oil spill fresh in our collective memory, not to mention the collapse of the economy by the hand of the bankers, few can even recall the most recent "terrorist attack" or even "terrorist threat" on American soil. There's something altogether new about this attack on our rights, or perhaps there's something missing from the narrative. If you believe Al Qaeda is still alive and well and ready to strike at any moment then perhaps you don't sense this strange void. Al Qaeda under Bin Laden was a classic "Boogey man" capable of justifying absolutely ridiculous over reactions by the Bush administration, and even then they also had Saddam Hussein to make sure we felt insecure enough to allow our rights to be almost completely dismantled before our eyes. But this thanksgiving session of congress seemed somehow transported back to September 11, 2001 when the world seemed chaotic and cruel, what could possibly have them feeling so insecure that they would sign away our rights to a trial by a jury of our peers?

Could it be that members of congress, many of whom are millionaires, are more afraid of the 99% than they ever were of Osama Bin Laden? Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and many more wise souls have issued us countless warnings about "Bankers" and "Monied interests", and in the last century we have been repeatedly warned about the congressional/industrial military complex. Our forefathers raised an army without much help, but they borrowed a great deal of money to do so, mostly from France. They understood that any group with significant funds could raise an army to achieve any ends at all, for freedom or for tyranny, and they knew that this power in private hands was perhaps a fate worse than they could yet conceive. This is ultimately the design of fascism, in which the wealthy ally with and/or subordinate the military to sustain hegemonic control over collective resources, including labor. And though we have been born into our contemporary context and experience these baby steps towards tyranny as gradual and incremental motions, Jefferson, Lincoln, F.D.R. and Eisenhower would recognize our world instantly as that dark dystopia they persistently warned us about. It has never been more clear to the common citizen that our republic is gone, our democracy defunct, and our rights have all been twisted into freakish distortions of their original intent.

In the course of human events, it has become necessary that we the people dissolve the political bands which have connected us with one another, and assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures' god entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind have required us to declare the causes which impel us to separate. We hold that our self evident, equal and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness have been undermined and chipped away at by governments who no longer seek the legitimate consent of the governed, but only of the wealthiest among us. We affirm the right of the people to alter and/or abolish the offending government, and institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us seems most likely to effect our safety and happiness. Prudence indeed, has dictated that governments long established have not been changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly our experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce us under the absolute despotism of Plutocracy, it is our right, it is our duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards to our future security.

There may have been some plagiarism in that last paragraph but I am prepared to go to jail for either the infringement on intellectual property, or for the content of said property. Under the current National Defense Authorization Act almost every sentence in the Declaration of Independence is a crime that could have our forefathers rotting in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without trial. For someone such as myself to suggest that our current government has become destructive of our unalienable rights, and that it is therefore our right, and further our duty, to abolish said government, is effectively my one way ticket to indefinite detention. Our forefathers understood that this new entity they were creating was not in itself a cause for unquestioning loyalty, that in fact it was just another legal fiction that could, and most likely would, be co-opted by the forces of aristocracy that have been as adaptive to new forms of government as the common cold is to our body's immune systems. As hard as they worked to make the constitution a design that could repel the forces of inequity, they knew that no design would be impervious and they made sure that we had the legal precedent of the Declaration of Independence giving us ultimate legitimacy to abolish our offending government, which they would not even recognize as the cause for which they pledged their "Lives," "Fortunes," and "Sacred Honor."

The 1% is behaving as if there were no longer a constitution, it's time we realized what they have known for a long time, our republic, our democracy, is already gone, abolished by the 1% in a corporate coup detat. It's the only logical explanation for the behavior of our government in the last 50+ years, believing the constitution is in tact and fully active only leaves us perplexed and bewildered when contemplating our recent history. But when you realize that we currently have a government of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%, it makes perfect sense, like water flowing along the path of least resistance. By hierarchical design the military and the police are automatically working for the 1%, their orders come from so far up the chain of command they rarely even know who is calling the shots. Nor do they care, they are selected and trained to care little for justice and much for authority, and have rarely shown any solidarity at all with other workers, citizens, humans. There is no boogey man prompting this attack on our inalienable rights, there is only the 99% finally coming out into the streets to say that this game is over. We simply cannot continue to enrich the few at the cost of the many, and that is the only terror that the 1% truly fears, and they have always been prepared for this moment. But they have no intention of giving up the wealth of the world, they feel strongly that they "own" it and they will spend most of their riches to maintain their very own army. An army of 1%.

Wolves and Sheep

Those who criticize democracy liken the process to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. A republic (or representative democracy) could then be characterized as a society of mostly sheep who can only vote for wolves to represent them. Both of these political theories involve voting, one implies voting for representatives specifically, and neither guarantee universal suffrage for all adults. Libertarians suggest individual liberty should be the guiding principle of all laws and governing bodies but this view is a political fallacy that does not function in reality where social dynamics put individuals at cross purposes to one another. In the wolves and sheep analogy, the libertarian scenario amounts to the law of the jungle in which the wolves are free to eat the sheep and the sheep is free to be eaten by wolves. "Libertarian" is not a mode of government but rather an ambiguous ideal that doesn't take into account that one's liberty ends where another's begins. Or as my grandfather used to say "Your rights end where mine begin."

In the united states, we have what we call a democratic republic, and it is often referred to as an ongoing experiment in democracy. But a pure democracy has never truly been practiced by any nation, state, kingdom or empire, not even by the Athenians who first conceived it. The Ancients Greeks experimented with direct democracy, representative democracy, and aristocracy, but never implemented universal suffrage acknowledging the equality of all citizens. Rome followed in kind but eventually undermined their republic in favor of an aristocratic empire. And to be fair, "Aristocracy" literally translates into the "rule of the best" which doesn't sound bad and may have been started with the best of intentions. But it quickly became the rule of a nepotist elite, a plutocracy of ruling families who retained the bulk of land and wealth. It took thousands of years for universal suffrage to become a moral question, and then a civil movement, and then the hard won rights of many, but not most people around the world.

Until relatively recently the experiments of democracy have been carried out entirely among the wolves, who rarely debated what to have for dinner. And as the wolves sustained themselves by extracting their nourishing riches from the poor, the sheep, the 99%, they grew very fat and passed on their ill-gotten wealth to each new generation. If libertarians could go back to zero, and argue for the liberty of all people, and protect those liberties before the wolves had plundered the sheep for thousands of years, they may have been a powerful political force in the history of democracy. But to argue for liberty in a world turned upside down by wolves who take what they want and then fiercely defend it as their rightful property, is to prevent the sheep from ever turning the world right side up again. Most of the wealthy, the 1% especially, do not directly identify with the Libertarian party, or it's main advocates, but they do appreciate the validation and the shield it provides to wealthy property owners. And the one thing they hold in common is that they believe in money over people, capital over labor, inherited property over earned property.

It's true there are "Socialist Libertarians" out there, but they might be seen as the black sheep, in keeping with our analogy. So even among the Libertarian fold there is disagreement on issues such as redistribution of wealth, or caps on wealth as FDR suggested in his Economic Bill of Rights. The most frustrating slogan coming from the Libertarian party is "Free Markets Free People" as if the two were one and the same. As if taking part in the market were itself not a privilege of those who have adequate capital (wealth) or access to credit, capital, or wealth. And all those who participate in the market may not be wolves, but those who dominate the market are, and they go on to manipulate the powers that are intended to keep them in check. This is the basic process we call corruption and it requires little or no conspiring, in fact it's exactly how the system is designed so we can expect the end product to be corruption every time. But the free market concept is an oxymoron, nothing in the market is "free", something is either "Free" or "Traded" but there is no such thing as "Free Trade."

Unfortunately, if there ever was any purity to the Libertarian agenda, it was at some point co-opted by the same people who decided that corporations are people, but with more rights, more power, more liberty than those of us with belly buttons. To them the Bhopal disaster may have been a tragedy, but there should be no laws to prevent something like that from re-occurring in the future. They don't see any problem limiting the liability of corporations, but to limit the liberty of corporations, to drill where they please, or dump toxic waste into the oceans and streams is an affront to freedom. Only under the guise of a word as pure and saintly as "Liberty" could anyone get away with the obvious advocacy of freedom without accountability. The agenda of the Libertarian party is so off kilter that it exposes their callous disregard, if not ignorance of the delicate balance that is liberty for all. This is not a group of disadvantaged underdogs fighting for truth and justice, it is a group of mostly white, affluent, and often wealthy, land owning conservatives who don't recognize just how much liberty they have, they only know where it's limits are and they don't like to be limited.

Is it possible that Libertarians have always been wolves in sheep's clothing?

A Plea for Intervention!

"Last month protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights, and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. And they were met with an iron fist."
~Barack Obama (referring to Muammar Gaddafis suppression of peaceful demonstrations)

Interventionism is not uncommon among nations when witnessing the suppression of the peoples voices under a brutal regime, it's natural to want to intervene on behalf of the people and remove the repressive system. This is well represented in the mission of NATO, an organization that started as a defensive pact among major allies after WWII but has participated in almost exclusively interventionist operations in the last half century. Take Libya for example; the people of Libya had watched their infrastructure and social fabric fall into decay over the last three decades due to the corruption of power and wealth at the very top. The riches of the country had been concentrated into so few hands that the people finally came to a breaking point and there were simply no other options but to go out into the streets in the tens of thousands and make their voices heard. And though they were beaten, arrested, and suppressed, their voices were heard around the world, and powerful organizations responded.

Is there a great power out there that can hear the voice of my people crying out for justice, risking everything to be heard? Is there a higher form of justice, order, authority who can intervene on the vast corruption of the political and economical power structures that exploit my people, suppress our will, and then brutally repress our peaceful demonstration for a redress of our grievances? We have watched our infrastructure and social fabric decay over the last three decades due to the corruption of power and wealth at the very top. The riches of the country have been concentrated into so few hands that the people finally came to a breaking point and there are simply no other options but to go out into the streets in the tens of thousands and make our voices heard. And though we are beaten, arrested, and suppressed, our voices are being heard around the world. Will some powerful organization respond?

Where are those who are supposed to police the police? Why won't our highest law authorities investigate systemic violations of first amendment rights? Where is NATOs NATO? Where is the true moral authority who can wag their finger at Hillary Clinton the way she self righteously chided Muammar Gaddafi? Where is the world leader who has the audacity to tell the American president that he should obey the will of his people or suffer the consequences? Where is the threatening presence of a super power who can force our rogue regime to play by the rules? Even with a constitutional law professor as the president of the united states of america, the constitution is all but meaningless as the president himself openly engages in and endorsed the extra-judicial killings of his own citizens and dozens of others around the world. The rule of law has been irretrievably subverted to the ends of the most powerful people on the planet through the mechanism of the corporate model.

The wealthy effectively own the poor and can have our labor, our property, even seduce our children for whatever price they name. To the wealthiest people of the world, everything and everyone has a price, and money is "no object." Wealth doesn't "Trickle Down," every last dime of it is used to the unfair advantage of the rich over the poor, the masses. While some work 50-60 hours each week and still lose their only home, others work not at all and have several lavish homes and everything they could ever want or need guaranteed to them, for simply being born into the right family. Our current system has devolved back into a feudal system where the few owners of vast wealth and estates are once again our true masters, we serve them for meager reward or oppose them at our own peril. There is little difference now between the "Landlord" in a Capitalist system and the "Lord of the Land" in a feudal system, our modern legal system still uses the word "Peasant" to describe the poor. The feudal system and capitalism have always had one very important common thread: property rights over human rights.

Property rights justified slavery and continue to justify the exploitation of labor and extraction of wealth by those who do no real work in our society. The basic idea of "Capitalism" is that one can use "Capital" (or money) to make more capital; or use money to make money. This very simple concept is always defended though rarely is the basic premise ever questioned: if money is a legal fiction, then why do we accept it as an alternative for labor, and furthermore, why do we value it above labor? Paper money was first issued in ancient Burma and took centuries to build credibility as a viable currency, it's no surprise that people weren't easily convinced that this paper "money" was worth trading away their actual labor, or goods (products of labor.) Today we worship this paper, and though we pretend to value hard work in our society, we deify those who can make it rain cash, even if they've never worked an honest days labor in their life. Though we secretly resent the rich we feel compelled by some invisible force to become their loyal lapdogs when and if we are fortunate enough to get close to them. Money is even considered the most effective sexual turn on, or perhaps "fetish" is more appropriate. Money may not buy love, but it compels some people to sell themselves to the highest bidder as opposed to living a more humble love story.

So who, or what great authority can intervene to save my people, the people of the world, the 99%? I honestly don't care if it's the Judeo-Christian god Jehovah, or Lord Vishnu, or even Lord Xenu, as long as they can restore order to the free market frenzy destroying our planet. But I sincerely hope that the intervention that must take place on behalf of my people, who are crying out for justice around the planet, will take place within each and every one of us, and will change our self destructive designs of hierarchical power to a lateral world of truly equal beings who need not compete with giant political and economic legal fictions like nations and corporations. The change that must occur is in how we view reality, what is truly real, and truly worth saving? We are rapidly waking up from the american dream, or more accurately we are like heroine addicts drying up from our hopeless addictions to the most self deluding drug of all: Money. We the people of the world call upon ourselves and each other to come to our own aid, and to each others defense, and together we will intervene on the inhuman parasitic systems that seek only to dominate and control us, together we will liberate the world!

In case any military super power actually thinks I want a military intervention anywhere, let me be clear: The people of world will shake off ALL forms of oppression.
WE ARE THE 99% AND WE ARE THE ONLY TRUE SUPER POWER!

Providing Jobs in a matter of Hours

The 99% occupation of Wall St. shows us that many people are waking up to the colossal failures of our economic system and the main tenets of "Free Market" Capitalism. Our centralized currencies are not unlike a mono cultured crop, a fragile system vulnerable to any number of threats. Diversity has the strength that mono-cultures lack, because even if one entire crop fails the greater harvest can still succeed. Centralized currencies are literally money-opolies, they are monopolies of money itself, and they must be broken up in a controlled demolition before they bring down the whole system when they fall. But our current government backed currencies can work side by side with alternatives, allowing for a transitional shift to a new system. If any of these suggestions seem too "radical" or "socialist" for you, consider the fact that we have a mixed economy that has for the last half century been systematically stripped of the most important socialist elements that have kept the system functioning for so long, and that now more drastic corrective measures must be taken to have an effective outcome.

Local hours based currencies (Also called Time Based Currency) offer a solution in both the immediate and long term future for the many challenges we now face, and challenges yet to unfold. With a very simple idea local towns and cities can stimulate economic growth in times of national and global economic downturns. Hours based currencies have been around for a while and there are more towns and cities around the world adopting them every year. Cities like Ithaca, New York and Madison, Wisconsin are the largest hours based currency systems in the united states and have been operating successfully for decades. So there are already a variety of models that can be studied and implemented based on the characteristics of your local economy. Here are some ideas, some of which are already a part of these models, and some are suggestions on how to expand an hours based economy beyond current models so that they can take the wheel when our national currencies are too punch drunk to drive.

Hours are issued through a collectively owned and operated 'Hours Bank' or 'Hours Collective' and decisions are made by members of the collective in transparent, democratic forums. The current model is one that must function in the context of our federal laws and with the dominant federal currency, therefore these collectives must charge membership fees to cover the costs of the operation. This sets a slight disadvantage on the psychological front when people ask why they must pay federal dollars to take part in a alternative currency. One of the problems with federal currency and it's 'get rich quick' pyramid scheme design is that it breeds skepticism over any and every exchange where dollars are involved. The current Hours based currency model is also limited to service and labor due to existing federal law stating that alternative currencies given a dollar value are then taxable as dollars by the federal government. These flaws in the current models are temporarily imposed by the federal government whose main players profit from it's long standing monopoly. Hours can easily integrate commodities and cover all costs once these false barriers are lifted, the flaws are in the laws.

So how can we make Hours work in our current legal system? Our existing democratic institutions can work in concert with this system in a few key ways: Local City/Town councils can endorse/promote the establishment of an independent Hours collective to help lend the fledgling currency legitimacy (a concern for all new forms of currency since the dawn of paper money) and encourage local businesses to accept it. In return the council can commission the Hours Bank to issue Hours as compensation for labor invested into public works and projects. Building and maintaining public infrastructure can be fully or partially funded with hours based currency, enabling projects previously lacking funds to go forward. Hours can exist simultaneously with national currencies, but are not adversely affected when large fluctuations or crashes in the national currency occurs. In fact, this is precisely why these local hours based currencies are required, so we can continue basic trade in the event of a total collapse of interdependent centralized currencies. Hours can work in two ways: they are issued to the workers of public projects, cooperatives, and collectives as compensation for hours worked. Then, once Hours are in circulation they stimulate the local economy and help anchor the poor and middle class in hard economic times.

Hours collectives can function as a socialist mirror to the banks in a capitalist system. Whereas Banks loan funds to private entities to create private wealth, Hours collectives can actually pay the labor cost of a collectively owned and operated organization. In an hours based economy hours don't represent some arbitrary value system, or even a far away piece of gold, hours represent your work. And as you work, you earn the work of others and the products they produce which you redeem with your Hours based currency. But the first generation Hours issued directly from the collective come from no fund, but the raw renewable resource of human labor. Instead of capitalizing that resource for the gain of the few, these hours are invested in public, lateral, democratic institutions. The Hours collective is simply one collective among many, whose paid staff earn no more than the hours for the time they worked. But they enable the sprouting of many new collectively owned businesses that can provide more than just jobs, but secure living wages.

Imagine waking up in 10 years to a world with no unemployment, with a thriving market and strong infrastructure. Imagine a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is all but vanished as we embrace that old work ethic that tells us that if we want more we can simply work harder. Imagine having everything you need to start a new enterprise, as long as you can do so in the collective format equally sharing the profits, costs, and goals and visions with all those who work their fair share. Imagine a world where people no longer think in terms of owners and workers, or use the rhetoric of our outdated class war.  A world where one must earn what they own, where the tyranny of inherited wealth no longer tilts the tables of equality. Imagine a world built by the people, with their hard work as the capital invested in the commons. A world that we the people actually own, with local shops and industries that we provide for as they provide for us. It's time for 'We the people' to take charge of our own welfare, to create a world of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Here's an interesting idea from England that takes a different approach, but the current systems work basically the same way in the US. I believe currencies should be locally issued by collective hours banks in autonomous city-states, and globally compatible: One hour of human labor being universally equal. This video is a nationalist, centralist model to which I am opposed, though it would be a step in the right direction and they make their case very clear.

Globalize Democracy/Localize Government!

We the people of the world will fundamentally change our global system to embrace the collective ideals of Justice, Liberty, Freedom for all people around the world equally, no exceptions. All animals, habitats, ecosystems, and of course the entire planetary ecosystem are all equal in this global system, with equal rights to a healthy existence. Those rights that we enjoy as Americans are the minimum standard of what we as humans will have universally, no exceptions. Human rights, democracy, equality, are what MUST be globalized, because in small pockets they are used as tools of hegemony, empires who rule by double standards for justice, rights, and democracy. Until democracy is universal it is undemocratic, until justice is universal it is unjust, until equality is universal it is unequal, until rights are universal they are still wrongs. As the 99% we welcome the 1% to willingly make the required sacrifice, to overpay the overdue dues, that we all know will make this planet more equitable, more sustainable, more adaptable and flexible for the changes that are happening.

It's beyond difficult for most americans to imagine a radically different world power structure, one that effectively eliminated any group, organization, corporation, or even government from becoming too big to fail. Can we imagine a world without super powers? Or a world where the people are the super power? Well, we live in that world today, we the people of the planet, along with the Earth and all of the natural world, are the only real super power. Our nations and corporations are "legal fictions," they are products of our imaginations and only exist on paper. These false entities are struggling for survival in a world that is quickly awakening to the fallacy that has sustained them, but many are still hesitant because they are unsure of what awaits them if we change. How can we change the world for the better without just resetting the same game to take place all over again with different players or the same players gaming the system? We've been playing Money-opoly for too long, we need to change the game.

Every nook and cranny of our world can be self governed on the smallest possible scale, and yet partake in various levels of democracy ranging from local to global. Each local governing body can enjoy autonomy under the agreement of adherence to a set of global treatise not unlike our current international laws. In a true global democracy, "one person, one vote" extends to every human being across the entire planet. Unlike our current international laws and treaties, each individual on the planet actually has a vote for or against these global policies, and their own ideas can be brought to the table without needless association with a group, organization, or political party. The same way that we vote for city, county, and state policies through measures, propositions, and special elections, we can vote for global policies. Open source governance can replace career politicians and patriarchal "executive" figure heads by putting the choice and the necessary information in the hands of the people. There is no need for a global government modeled after our current federal government or the UN, functions at the regional and global levels become little more than that of the election volunteers on the county level.

Instead of having various levels of governance, each town and city will have open councils in person and/or online that handle the everyday affairs of the city. An example of how an online forum overlaps with a physical event, live stream video combined with live stream chats allow the people attending meetings to draw from the ideas and information that others are sending in real time. Instead of counties, we will have resource shed councils, like water sheds, and food sheds, where towns/cities in the same water shed for example have shared stewardship of that resources. The goal (perhaps part of the global treatise) would be for each watershed to become self sustainable so no town or city would carelessly grow beyond it's capacity to sustain itself with water and other basic resources. Beyond these resource-shed councils there would be only the infrastructure and apparatus of democracy, no executive figure heads who rule over many cities and towns like we know today. When we have issues that govern global policies, we all have a say, and possibly a hand in drafting them and eventually voting for them, one person, one vote world wide, no exceptions.

Only issues of global importance and significance are globally decided, the rest will happen at the local levels. Examples of global issues are: democracy, human/animal rights, civil liberties, equality, economic justice, environmental sustainability, regional and global trade and resource sustainability, and war crimes. Direct democracy on a global level is perhaps the only way to avoid the usual fear of world government, the only ones who should fear direct democracy are those who want an unfair hierarchical system with themselves on top and the rest of us on bottom. Those of us who are tired of being on bottom are the 99% and we are ready to create a lateral world. We have for too long globalized the most inequitable systems while limiting democracy and human rights to small groups and regions. We who occupy our little corners of the planet, also occupy the planet as a whole, together. We are beginning to see a 'We the people' who are no less than the global population, each deserving of the same rights, the same voting power. We the people of the world, will form a more perfect union, of real entities, not false idols, a union of people, planet, and ecosystem.

Occupy Earth!

wRONg PAULitics! ...why Ron Paul is not the 99%

One of the great things about the 99% is that it's so inclusive, all individuals are truly welcome and can have their voices heard. But aside from the 1% there are a few other considerations for those who are thinking, and acting in radically democratic ways. For example, it's not cool to come to rallies and marches drunk, high, or in possession of recreational drugs or alcohol. It would be TOTALLY inappropriate to speak at a rally or use the peoples microphone for racist hate speech, MEL GIBSON! And of course it would be downright douche-y to endorse your company or product while addressing an occupy crowd. What has been a source of confusion and contention is the political activity of campaigners, or those who endorse a specific candidate and/or agenda and effectively represent that group and it's strategy. They do not come to the events and cyber hubs of the occupy movement as individuals, but as representatives of that group and/or agenda, often with the only goal of recruiting people to their more limited causes and remedies.

Of these groups one stands above them all in their concerted effort to corral the 99% into their ranks to adopt their agenda and strategy, and that group is made up of Ron Paul supporters who effectively campaign on his behalf. This may have had something to do with the deadline for GOP registration being October 14, of course the Paul campaign wants as many people registered GOP as possible so his odds of winning the Republican nomination increase. There's nothing new about this, and if there's anything "wrong" with it, it's that it's business as usual politics. In fact, Ron Paul has for years been recruiting those on the left whom he can convince that his agenda is also their agenda, based on a few overlapping issues. Those issues are primarily the ongoing wars and military bases around the globe, abolishing corporate person-hood, and the goal to end the Federal Reserve banking Money-opoly. And those ideas are already a BIG part of the 99% agenda, so of course anyone can come discuss those issues and bring any idea to the table. But why should those ideas be called Ron Pauls' ideas?

I have attempted to engage in dialog with many of the people who leave Ron Paul links on Occupy Facebook pages, or bring Ron Paul campaign signs to 99% events, and it always goes the same. They tell me that Ron Paul wants what I want, that he has been "fighting the good fight" for decades, and that he is all about "Freedom" and "Liberty." And when I try to tell them that I don't want everything Paul wants, and that I have different ideas about "Freedom" and "Liberty" they go into straw man mode, accusing me of advocating things I never even eluded to. As if I can only TOTALLY agree with Ron Paul, or TOTALLY disagree with him on each and every issue, you're with him or against him. But I believe the majority on the left simply see right through Ron Pauls' gratuitous rhetoric about war, the issue that made him popular on the left during the Bush years when we needed allies on the right to oppose war. And he makes a lot of sense when he talks about the crimes of our nation, not because he's so smart or such a great guy but simply because he's talking about it at all.

So he has some good ideas, so do I, and so do the 99%. So he can tell us that our wars and military policy are wrong, we knew that already no matter how refreshing it is to hear in a republican primary debate. So he has been a life long champion of the cause to end the Federal Reserve, no offense, but so have a lot of us and altogether none of us have achieved this goal thus far through the normal channels of "democracy." So you might think that Ron Paul and his supporters would be overwhelmed with joy knowing they have common goals with the 99%? But their greater goal is to elect Ron Paul for president, and they only see these common goals as opportunities to bring more voters into their fold. So when we talk to them the conversation always short circuits back to Ron Paul, and the strategy is limited to voting for him, a political dead end. Let's face it, Ron Paul will never be the president of the United States, just as Ralph Nader will never be the president, and I knew that when I voted for him. But Ron Paul supporters don't seem to know this, they actually think Paul could win the popular vote, if only the corrupt system would let him.

So their goal is for us to register as GOP voters, and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Then IF he wins the primary, vote for him for president, then IF he wins the presidency he will end the wars and end the Fed. Hooray! But wait, what else will he do? He won't bring us universal health care, he claims that's socialism and socialism doesn't work. He may or may not deal with Wall St. beyond breaking up the Fed, but he is 100% for "Free Market Capitalism" which is conservative code for "Unfettered capitalism" which could also be called "Ungoverned Capitalism". Why would you want to remove the rule of law from the market place, isn't that called anarchy? If we apply the "Unfettered" concept to criminal law it would be the law of the jungle, when we apply the same concept to the military we get martial law, why would we want such a savage economic system? I don't hear the wealthy saying we need to remove murder barriers, why remove trade barriers? Ron Paul supporters would dismiss us as mistaking capitalism for "corporatism", I think we know the difference. But they don't seem to understand the difference between "Free Trade" (an oxymoron) and "Fair Trade" a level playing field in which they might actually fail.

I don't need to tackle his whole agenda before I decide whether Ron Paul qualifies to "represent" me, and I know the difference between people joining the discussion as campaigners as oppose to individuals. We are all the 99% as individuals, not as representatives of groups, politicians, corporations, etc. This is not a "rule" and there is no "forcing" people one way or the other. But I know that if I brought my pop up tent and folding table and started selling my wares at an occupy event that I would not be the 99%, I would be selfishly exploiting the opportunity for my short term economic gain. I don't want to see political canvassing, tabling, or campaigning in the occupy movement anymore than I want to see Fedex style product placement from corporations. I don't want to see political parties recruiting voters any more than I want to see the branches of the military recruiting soldiers among the discontent, despondent youth in the movement. I sincerely have no problem with Ron Paul or his supporters, but as a group, as a campaign, as a unified front with a singular goal, I'd rather they not try to co-opt this movement to their own ends. It's hard to discuss alternatives to our current system when people are trying to convince you to give it another shot.

We are all the 99% as individuals, so please check your Ron Paulitics at the door.

Here is an example of guidelines established for Occupy Wall St. forums, in this case the Global Revolution live stream chat, which has hosted one of the most vibrant and rapid interactions of any online forum:

globalrevolution on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

"We are here for one purpose ...to support the OWS and new occupations..
we do not discuss politics...political candidates...religion...or any other isms..
this is because those topics...bring division and conflict ...and we will not be distracted
if you want to talk about money...or the fed..or the wars...or taxes.. there are other places to do that ..
we have been using these rules for 30 days now... and the make this a safe productive space..
we do not bash anyone...
no racsim...sexism...or any other bigetry is allowed..
HATE, VIOLENCE and ILLEGAL ACTS or DRUGS  talk...will get you a perma ban ..
we ask for mutual respect and focus :)
we love and thank every one of you!
when we ban...it is not personal...it is just keeping things on track..
please only share related links...
no personal promotion is allowed...
there are fake donation sites...so be careful :)
please dont spam... it makes it too fast.."

~Global Revolution live stream chat admins.