#ICOFOUNDEDOCCUPYWALLST

It's been a while since my last post, I've been distracted by too many things and trying to spend time doing something that might eventually make some money. For many of us, it's not that we have so little to do that activism sounds fun. But when you have so much to do and so little to work with you turn to activism as your only hope to break the vicious cycle, to change the system before it completely breaks you. When occupy began there were already a great number of people falling below the poverty line, so many lost their homes in the recent crash and leading up to that time that many people simply had no where else to go.

Of course it began in NYC but this wasn't the true face of the movement, nor was it the heart nor the brain. It was more like center stage, and those in the spotlight were the actors portraying the movement the way actors do, passionately but somehow more beautiful. I don't mean to take away from the powerful and authentic experiences people took part in, I merely want to show that even NYC was playing a part in a larger movement that it couldn't possibly represent completely or accurately for many reasons. Nor should it represent the whole without regard for the unique concerns of those present, which is why each group took on it's own unique identity usually combining the word "occupy" with a specific regional distinction.

In the same way that many people can't afford to march on Washington DC for any cause simply due to the cost of travel and time off work, most people couldn't afford the ticket to NYC to actually occupy Wall St. We used our cyber connections so that one's voice could be heard from coast to coast and beyond, the people were speaking and listening. Somehow, quite naturally, as we formed these regional groups we were able to address all of the important issues of our lives, from the micro neighborhood concerns to the macro level of international politics and multinational entities. Though our independent identities could have easily led to a chaotic and disjointed movement, policies and practices aligned as if we were all guided by the same compass. How was this possible? With no leaders we are told we will all spin in endless circles for eternity, without powerful wealthy people showing us just how good it is to be on top, how will we know what to aim for?

Though the movement had a very left/liberal/radical undertone, it attracted many curious people who had other, or no affiliations whatsoever. What they found was a conversation that didn't sound anything like the debates on TV, in which one group is usually singled out for scorn and blame. Well, except perhaps those we began to affectionately refer to as the 1%. And save the occasional "Eat the Rich" sign, there was even a surprising level of respect granted to this singled out group of people. But the spaces opened up for dialog was not the result of finding a target to blame our common problems on, but in the realization that the vast majority of people on this planet, if we can find no other way to identify with one another in a state of true solidarity, we are the 99% When we hear statistics that tell us that 1% of the world population owns half of the worlds wealth, it's pretty clear which side of that line you're on.

We all know that most statistics are complete bullshit, or should I say 99% of all statistics are bullshit? Even the best checked stats can't be completely true, and may be completely false for all we know. The two most common percentiles used in rhetoric are "50%" and "99%" because it sounds better than using the words "half" and "most" over and over. Numbers just sound more logical, even if you're using them to make fallacious statements designed to trigger emotional responses. Most Americans are bombarded with misleading media all day everyday assuring them that the world is fairly evenly split between left and right, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, you name it. When it suits a certain group to portray themselves as outnumbered they use the corresponding rhetoric, but for the most part we're divided but not emboldened by our numbers.

What does any of this have to do with occupy? Not much. "Occupy" refers to the tactic of occupation of public spaces and sometimes government or corporate facilities. We are not "occupy", but some of us "occupy", all verb, no noun. This didn't seem to matter until many towns and cities around the country couldn't continue their occupations in the cold, or were dealt with too harshly by local authorities in that cold winter. Though most of these groups continued to meet indoors in community spaces to carry on the general assembly meetings, an identity crisis quickly ensued as groups called "Occupy..." were no longer occupying any public spaces in the same continuous manner they had before. Though many communities managed to tough out the winter months, the spring did not bring occupiers back into these public spaces.

There's no doubt looking back on that phase of the movement that it was a unique and powerful moment in time. This was never a summer event, you would think a prolonged occupation would be planned for warmer months, it's hard enough to organize a mass demonstration in June. But despite the fact that camping season was clearly over people used camping as a new tactic of demonstration, reminiscent of past and present homeless encampments. But the real paradigm shift came from the new slogan carefully chalked on cardboard signs and cleverly rolling off the tongues of thousands of demonstrators in their winter coats: WE ARE THE 99%! I don't recall the word "Occupy" being used in any chants and I certainly don't remember anyone carrying a sign that said "We are Occupy."

Though I can't speak for every group, I was active in Occupy Bend in Oregon, a small city in a vast rural area. We had a good variety of people from various colors and stripes of the proverbial political spectrum but managed to hold true to policies avoiding divisive language. Once in a while someone would mention their party affiliation, or use words like "liberal" or "conservative" to describe their values but for the most part we avoided these terms and didn't discuss parties or politicians, just policy. It's hard to fathom that this could be achieved, and I doubt I could replicate this phenomenon if I tried. But somehow when we focused on policies and issues that most concerned us, we aligned, if not completely agreed. How can left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and libertarian come together and agree on so many things? By not saying the words "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", "democrat", "republican", "Obama", "Ron Paul", etc. etc. etc...

These terms are (or can be) divisive because some of us identify with them, and others identify with the opposites. If you identify with "conservative" then you're probably going to offend some people just by saying the word "liberal" in that derisive tone that suggests that there's something wrong with "liberals." If you identify with a politician you might be compelled to defend their politics when you perceive others to be "bashing" them. There are many who have no sympathy for the leaders of their party until someone from outside of the party attacks, thus reinforcing divisions along party lines. Praising a certain politician can have a similar effect, especially if that politician has a complex set of ideals on their agenda. And of course, designating leaders would most likely cause many of the same divisive problems in time, creating power struggles within the movement. As it was, the whole movement was a constant struggle to remain independent of so many groups and entities that would gladly co-opt any popular movement for the mileage it could provide to their existing agendas.

The occupy movement, for lack of a better term, began in the middle of the biannual election cycle. This is the time when Americans are the least propagandized in polarizing rhetoric, if we didn't get a break every other year we would surely all go shooting spree crazy, seeing terrorist Muslims behind every tree in our towns. Not that they would wait very long before kicking off the next election cycle, in fact every state it seemed couldn't have their primaries soon enough. We had already seen most occupations come and go, and though we continued meeting our numbers were thinning even as the snow began to melt. Just when we could have been planning a spring/summer occupation that could dwarf our previous numbers, our political party masters began pulling the strings of fear and division. In the beginning there were some people who came out with the attitude that, if they couldn't campaign for their favorite politician, what was the point of discussing politics? Some of them stayed and played along, others left in disgust. But the following spring it became clear that all of these divisive buttons were being pushed signaling to the masses that it was time to fall back in line and rally round the party.

Occupy wall st and it's many counterparts may have been a powerful demonstration, but it wasn't the movement, it's not an identity, and identifying too much with it has caused many predicted problems. Occupy is over, past tense, done, which is all too convenient for those who were chomping at the bit to write the obituary of the movement and wax philosophical on the many reasons it failed, with subtle implications embedded in the premise. If we had resisted this illogical identification and instead emphasized our identity as "The 99%" no one could declare us dead, defunct, or ultimate failures. It's harder to imagine us eliminating the old ties that bind us to political parties, especially if we've been politically active as volunteers on campaigns. But as the 99%, over time, we can (and should) be emphasizing this identity so that it becomes on par with our party affiliations, and perhaps someday soon we will identify first as the 99% and can liberate our minds from the party agendas which we know deep down are not worth defending.

Now in the news comes the story of Justine Tunney, who claims she founded ows, or at least the twitter feed largely identified with the movement. But, she seems to believe that she is responsible for the movement as a whole and has been making her own attempt to retroactively co-opt the message of the movement. So, despite what you thought, apparently we DID have a leader, there IS an "i" in "Teiam", and apparently we all hate the "Liberal Elite" and love corporations, especially Google, whom our new dear leader is a dedicated employee of. Apparently, she also tells us not to use consensus, the democratic model at the heart of every general assembly. I guess if I was trying to co-opt the movement I'd better discourage or eliminate the voice of the people, especially the veto power. Otherwise my coup detat may be too short lived. Anyone who had any experience with an occupy general assembly meeting knows that there are plenty of crazies out there who think they can walk in and take over this leaderless group, everyone has a little Napoleon in them after all. So it's really no surprise to see that two years later it's never too late to co-opt the movement to your own ends.

But the real problem and it's solution are the same as they were then, and it's never too late to make the necessary correction. Stop identifying with "occupy", either use the tactic or not, but don't be the tactic. Instead make your most passionate appeal as, by, and for the 99%. Identify with that as much and as deeply as possible, the 99% is your brother, your sister, your family, your friends. It doesn't matter who's left or right, or who's right or wrong, we are all the 99% together. Except, of course, for the 1%, who we need to be focused on like a laser beam, like we were that Fall. Naming a problem is the first step to correcting it, and we named the 1%, and the 1% heard us. They have never been as frightened as they were then, and they would, and will stop at nothing to prevent it from ever happening again. I'm not addressing any special conspiracy, but human nature, what we call "self preservation." The 1% prefers we identify with occupy and wonder what went wrong, why and how we failed, as long as it's all past tense they're satisfied. But the 99% is not past, not over, not gone and not going anywhere, and together we know what the problem is and there's no lack of ideas on what to do about it. Occupy is/was only one of those ideas, and though it can and should happen again, our identity should never be so confused with it that we as a group begin and end with one event.

The New Due Process

"Due Process and Judicial Process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to National Security."
~Attorney General Eric Holder

Eric Holder's recent clarification of our constitutional right to Due Process is nothing short of a declaration of lawlessness that removes any standard for justice in the world. He was justifying the Obama administrations use of pilotless drones to assassinate US citizens abroad, a specific example with broad implications, especially considering the timing of his speech in the period between the signing of the 2012 NDAA and it's implementation in early March. In the past months the shock of Obama's passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has been wearing off and people are starting to wonder exactly what it means and how it will be implemented. It is not hyperbole to suggest that, in it's extreme, the provisions of this bill allowing for indefinite detention of civilians by military authorities without due process could be used to justify a declaration of Martial Law under any number of perceived threats to the Nation. Though Holder's examples of targeting al-Qaeda may be the emotional triggers that compel many Americans to agree with such a drastic departure from our right to a trial by jury, his statements made to justify the assassination of  a US citizen was shockingly broad in scope.

"We must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority, and I would argue, the responsibility to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force. This principle has long been established under both US and international law. In response to the attacks perpetrated,  and the continuing threat posed by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerence under International law. The constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war."
~Attorney General Eric Holder

What is security if the greatest military super power in the history of the world can be so easily threatened by particular individuals? The US government is the mighty hero, or the damsel in distress depending on which mask suits it better at anytime, and often plays both roles simultaneously. The US government, outlined in the constitution, was designed to protect the rights, and provide for the security of the people. Ironically, this great power is more concerned with it's own security, and seems to be showing signs of paranoid schizophrenia. During the entire cold war with a perceived equal power the US government never made such drastic compromises of our constitutional right to trial by jury. Though the Bush/Cheney administration had expanded the powers of the executive branch in the direction of an all powerful monarch, Obama's supporters had "hoped" he might restore the balance of powers and the rights of the people. Instead, Obama is proud of his assassination program that has taken the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, and we must take the his word for it when those who are assassinated are labeled "guilty."

If this is how Obama treats his people in response to an old foe who has not struck in over a decade, how might our government respond to an internal threat that could potentially lead to widespread unrest or even revolution? After all, the US is a legal fiction, like a corporation, so would it not be ultimately threatened by a revolution, however peaceful, that could possibly replace it, render it redundant, or revoke it's charter? There are many who feel strongly that the US has no rights, especially in relation to natural born human beings, real entities with eyes to read these words; and that the only mandate a government has is by the consent of the governed, but not under duress by a government that perceives threats in it's own people. To write in the vein of our forefathers, to write with the passion of Thomas Paine, is all one needs to do to be on this ever-growing list of threats to a system of government that has long since lost it's legitimacy by the standards outlined in it's own constitution. There are some who are calling for an Article V convention under the constitution making a group of citizens an equal branch of power in checking the other branches, and authorizing a convention of citizens to amend the constitution. Perhaps these US citizens will be perceived as threats to this legal fiction called the US government, if they were seeking assurance from Holder's speech there was no comfort in his words to be found.

Holder vehemently defended Obama's right to assassinate US citizens based on the following criteria:

"First, the US government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation will be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."
~Attorney General Eric Holder

Again, it can't be overstated that one cannot attack a legal fiction, and when done in war it is usually from a force of comparable or considerable size. That the president can deliberate over which petty criminal crosses the line into a viable threat against an entire nation in the secrecy of the oval office is perhaps the greatest threat this nation has ever known. The oath of office makes a distinction between enemies of the constitution being foreign or domestic, but it does not place one beneath the other. So what of those who believe that their own government officials, in the service of the wealthy corporations, have subverted the constitution in a manner that could lead one to declare them the enemy of the constitution? What of those who feel that Barack Obama is a far greater threat to the US for his consistent attacks on the constitution than any so-called terrorist hiding in the mountains of central Asia? Could it not be said that "capture is not feasible" for those in the Government and corporate elite who are perceived threats to the US in the eyes of it's own people? Holder's speech was a declaration of war on the citizens of the United States "consistent with applicable law of war principles" and strongly implies the imminent state of martial law on US soil.

The movement of Occupy Wall Street has brought our disturbing state of affairs to the foreground to be observed by even the most prudent skeptics, and the facts all add up to a Plutocratic coup d'etat in which our corporations select our congress members and presidents, they write our legislation and send it to the capital for a rubber stamp, and there seems to be little we the Natural born persons (as opposed to corporate persons) can do to stop this subversion of democracy. So now the Corporate persons are the only interests being represented in congress, and nothing threatens them more than OWS. It seems we are being prepared for an act of congress so heinous, so authoritarian, that only a series of shocking advances and overblown threats can deliver it in a short enough timescale. That timescale is based around the presidential election season, and by election day 2012 all of the pieces will be in place needing only to be implemented, the groundwork for all of the legal justification having been laid out piece by draconian piece. It doesn't matter who wins the election, the 1% is always the president, and he has no choice but to carry out their will lest he go the way of JFK. When a leader declares war on another country he does so with booming voice from the presidential podium for all to hear, when he declares war on his own people he uses legal jargon in hushed tones.

The week before Holder's speech a young unarmed black teenager was shot dead while pleading for his life in a gated community in Florida. His attacker, George Zimmerman was a self appointed neighborhood watch patrol man armed with a 9mm handgun who had a past of calling in suspicious black individuals in the neighborhood. Under a controversial new Florida law called the "Stand you ground" law, anyone who feels "threatened" can essentially get away with murder, and apparently if they only murder a black person they aren't even brought in for questioning. Zimmerman simply told the police who arrived on the scene that he felt threatened, though he was an armed adult 80lbs heavier than the young unarmed boy, and he admittedly pursued the boy who attempted to evade him out of fear. If one takes Holder's remarks in regards to threats against the nation and replaces the word "Nation" with "Neighborhood" a disturbing parallel begins to emerge. Trayvon Martin, the young black teen gunned down by Zimmerman was a perceived threat to the neighborhood based on the flimsiest of pretense, and was summarily executed on site without judicial process, but he must have claimed some form of due process. Because what is "Due Process" if it isn't "Judicial Process?" Isn't it simply a way of denying one their right to a trial by jury; to gun someone down in the streets and simply declare that they got what they deserved, what was Due? In other words, lawlessness, at least by the standards guaranteed in our constitution. But perhaps we the people no longer have rights, rights are now the sole property of nations and corporations and we'd best not get in their way because they may decide we are due for the process.

A Very Big Tent

Before the first march on Wall St., before the first 3 man tent was erected in "Liberty Plaza", before the first amplified speech, which was before the first use of the human microphone, this fledgling new movement had already made a monumental achievement in the landscape of our contemporary political rhetoric. Any psychologist can tell you that themes and narratives are vastly important in how our brains, our minds process information, and therefore a collective shift in our narrative of world events is effectively a collective shift in consciousness, even if you don't acknowledge the spiritual aspects of such a phenomena. While the world was for so long clearly divided between "Haves" and "Have nots" or "Owners" and "Workers", the "American Dream" broke that narrative with a new theme, a new frame or context to view the same system, and we call that narrative "The Middle Class." For almost a century now this new narrative changed the way we saw the world, but it didn't change the world, not much.

We once had kings, monarchs, emperors, executing their dictates throughout the land, empowering 1% of the people to literally own the other 99% as mere possessions among their vast estates. This small minority was deputized with legal authority to imprison the people, settle disputes, and keep the peace. They felt very strongly that their god had given them this authority, that they rightfully owned not just the land, but the people who inhabited it alongside themselves. And what an incredible burden to be tasked with, to have hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dependents, living on their land, and relying quite heavily on their good will and favor. And those people who so desperately depended on this 1% didn't understand that they consumed so much, and lived such a high quality of life, just to keep the 99% busy, to give them jobs to do. After all, they had been blessed with good fortune and had reaped the rewards of higher education and privileged access to any opportunity a life can offer. We called these people the aristocrats and despite the rise and fall of empires over time, these parasites jumped like fleas onto the back of the next rising empire on the horizon.

There is only one pesticide that can eventually rid the world of these parasites who consume and contaminate the vast riches of our planet, who take 99% of the fruit and do 0% of the labor, and that pesticide is called "Direct Democracy." We have lived in a world where "representative democracy" has been hailed as the truest form of democracy, well, at least in recent years when the process didn't overtly exclude groups of people based on ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Perhaps taking 200 years to clear these hurdles has prevented us from seeing the greater injustice, so that now we merely appreciate that anyone of any color, gender, etc. can participate in an unjust system of governance. For example, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US armed forces may be the right thing to do in one context, but it doesn't mean the armed forces are doing the right thing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it doesn't make a homosexual soldier any less guilty of violating international law. But when you begin to frame our economic system in the narrative of the "99% vs. 1%" it gets increasingly difficult to deny that somehow our representative system only represents the 1%, or perhaps a less debatable way to say it is that no matter who wins an election, the 1% always wins.

No matter how mystified the main stream media continue to be about the "99%/occupy" movement, this simple narrative keeps shining through, like the sun clearing the fog in it's oncoming wake. Our polarized rhetoric begins to fade away as we embrace the reality of the contemporary aristocracy, the rate at which the income/wealth gaps have been growing has reached a point where the lifestyle of the 1% is radically different than what "conservatives" have been defending for hundreds of years. Even those ultra "conservative" Republicans of the oldest order who still favor the days of the robber barons before FDR made some alterations to the class system, they know that our current monied powers make the robber barons look like small fish. American political rhetoric is yogic in it's flexibility, but to call yourself "Conservative" and somehow justify the most radical and revolutionary leaps in the structures of money and executive power seems to be the position that finally breaks the elephants back. Terms like "Right", "Left", Liberal", "Conservative", are meant to divide us, not in how we live or what we believe, but the same way in which we pick a favorite football team, or select the brand that suits our self image.

Maybe the biggest difference that divides us is that some people stick with a team, a brand, a political party, for the rest of their lives no matter what may develop over that time, while others believe loyalty should be conditional, and that perhaps all relationships should be equal in power, in give and take. And when it comes to the political system it's increasingly difficult to see the difference between Coke and Pepsi (Democrats and Republicans), and having an equally sugary beverage in orange or clear colors doesn't seem like the most appealing direction to take. But the parties aren't sugary beverages, the sugar in this analogy is money, and every party is saturated in money, and the 1% can make any party it wants viable, or render it moot. But even if we could effectively break the dominant two-party system, we would still be left with representatives who have the privilege of access to adequate capital, wealth, the favor of the 1%. We can waste many lifetimes trying to remove one or more arrows from the quiver of the 1%, but as long as we keep centralized power and conquering currencies we are feeding the 1% and perpetuating the demise of our planet.

This new narrative that gives us the linguistic tools we need to diagnose the true ailment, the true source of our collective woes, will have failed if we do not completely eliminate the parasitic classes who pretend capital is a worthy contribution and an even trade for the lions share of the fruits of our labor. The 99% occupy space symbolizing the theft of land by the 1%, and we join together in general assembly meetings to practice direct democracy, signalling that we now know what true democracy looks like. And though we will struggle through the billion dollar brainwashing campaigns called election season we will emerge again to find the 1% at the helm and the people on the hook to pay for their countless crimes. We may see some minor level bankers and hedge fund managers take one for the team, but the team will continue to commit crimes of capital, war crimes, and any other crimes they damn well please. There will be many who admittedly cannot show their faces at a General assembly meeting, or an Occupy event, because they will wake up after election day realizing they have just consented to everything they have been struggling to change. And those few who identify with terms like "The right" or "Conservative" may vote for the Republican candidates and feel slighted and isolated by the heavy leaning towards democrats among occupiers.

Within the occupy movement there has been a call for unity among groups and organizations, and for greater outreach to those on all sides of the political spectrum who are hesitant to participate with the 99%. But the timing of the elections has been hugely detrimental as so many groups and organizations latch onto our two-party systems even as they criticize them. The question arises, how do we reach out to these groups in the hyper-polarized political climate of another critical election season, especially when we cannot really endorse any candidates or parties? The consensus process at the heart of the Occupy General Assembly format is designed to replace party/representative politics, not participate in it, and definitely not embrace it. Therefore we do not campaign for representatives, nor do we spend any time discussing who we intend to vote for. There are consensus groups who discuss and decide these things during election seasons, they're called caucuses, and the Occupy movement has principles inherent in it that prevent the General Assemble format to become another political caucus.

There are many who come to the simple conclusion that if one cannot campaign on behalf of their preferred presidential candidate, then there is nothing of any value to be found in the Occupy movement. This is proof positive that many people cannot imagine having political power in their own hands, they can only conceive of a world where the minority holds collective power by our consent, and exercise that power on our behalf. But we are waking up to the obvious inequities of this power structure that sustains the unsustainable, we cannot choose whether or not this plutocracy can continue, it cannot, we can only choose whether we wish to be awake for the inevitable collapse. And among the benefits of consciousness is the ability to prepare for the inevitable, to begin to see another way of organizing, and structuring power in our world. Our need for centralized, patriarchal power structures is quickly waning, but that goal is a fallacy that we need not work too hard against, as it is already working against the natural laws of the universe. And when the proverbial tower falls in on itself, we the people will be gathered together to take the reigns and survive as autonomous communities with loyalties only to democracy itself. What we make of our world is less important than how we make those decisions, and I pledge my loyalty to the consensus of the people, not the puppets of the 1%.

We are the 99% only to the extent that we resist our polarized narrative and embrace the biggest tent of them all: We the people.

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?