community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
TOTAL LIBERATION FEST 04' ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA
by AZN INVAZN
Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 at 8:32 AM
TLFest@aol.com
Check out Total Liberation Fest 04' in Erie, Pennsylvania January 10th and 11th, 2004 Romona Africa!
Total Liberation Fest 04'
Erie, Pennsylvania
January 10th and 11th
speakers:
Romona Africa
Rod Cornardo
Leslie Pickering
Ashanti Austin
and many more...
check it out @ http://www.total-liberation.com
ALL PROCEEDS GOES TO ANIMAL/EARTH LIBERATION POLITICAL PRISONERS
pittsburgh-ers going
by ---
Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 at 8:38 AM
A group of people from Pittsburgh will be going and may be able to bring extra folks.
say what?
by durutti
Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 at 12:20 PM
The proceeds are going to ecoterrorists? Rosebraugh types? Please elaborate.
.
by .
Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 at 1:08 PM
i <3 eco"terrorists".
you didn't answer the question
by durutti
Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 at 2:03 PM
Are they ALF and ELF types, which are known terrorists? Are you advocating aiding and abetting domestic terrorists?
Hmm...
by 23
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 4:10 AM
Well, primitivism is reactionary, and Kevin Tucker is the biggest idiot ever.
But Conflict makes the whole thing awfully tempting...
questions questions questions
by Person which is Irving's biggest fan
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 4:22 AM
"Are you advocating aiding and abetting domestic terrorists?'
Yeah come on, which one of you at the Total Liberation Fest supports the slow poisoning of the entire country with mercury?
Or the destruction of its wetlands and forests?
Or the eradication of its endangered species?
Or the draining of its natural resources?
Or the further intensification of already-intensive factory farming?
And on and on...
Come on, own up - Who?
(You go Irving, give it to them! By the way, who exactly are those "Rosebraugh types"? Just wondering)
I'll give it to you, durutti
by Irving
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 9:46 AM
"BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection."
-------------------------------------------
As the U.S. led military campaign gets fully under way in the very near future, the question remains� how far is the anti-war movement in the United States willing to go to stop the U.S. government and its unceasing atrocities? How far are you willing to go, what are you willing to do to stop the massive bloodshed once again caused by the U.S. government?
As the Commander in Chief of the United States gears up at 8:00 pm (EST) to tell the nation and the world that war is inevitable, that the window of opportunity for Saddam to disarm and destroy his �weapons of mass destruction� has expired, serious questions need to be posed to the privileged anti-war movement in the United States. With massive U.S. led bombing of Iraq perhaps just hours away, the question remains, how far is the anti-war movement in the United States willing to go to stop the U.S. government and its unceasing atrocities?
So far the peace or anti-war movement in this country has mirrored the same strategies and tactics of past historical anti-war causes. By far the most important example to reference is that of the Vietnam anti-war movement in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Well over a million people participated in this effort, engaging in a variety of tactics and strategies in an attempt to stop the war, or even to prevent its further escalation. From public education to picketing, boycotts to lobbying, marches to massive civil disobedience, to even outright suicide in the numerous cases of individuals lighting themselves on fire in protest, the Movement was extremely diverse. There was even a decent contingency of property destruction that occurred, no doubt condemned by the mainstream corporate peace organizations.
With all this activity, with the incredible amount of participation, one would assume this would have been more than enough to stop the war, to pressure the federal government to pull out of Southeast Asia. Furthermore, when soldiers such as Ron Kovic, returned from the war angry and disillusioned and formed organizations such as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, even more intense pressure was placed on the U.S. government. But it was not enough. None of the strategies and tactics applied during the Vietnam anti-war movement in the United States were enough, either individually or combined, to stop the U.S. government�s military horrors. At the height of the Movement, Nixon�s response was not to stop the war but to initiate his policy of Vietnamization. This ingenious plan allowed the U.S. government to weaken the anti-war movement while continuing on with the war for another five years. When the peace accords were finally signed in Paris in 1973, they were more a result of the incredible success of the Viet Cong than any realistic effectiveness of the anti-war cause.
Each of the anti-war movements that have surfaced in the United States since then have attempted to mirror, to an absolutist extent, the strategies and tactics that failed during the Vietnam anti-war struggle. In fact these same strategies and tactics have been used in nearly all U.S. anti-war movements throughout history and the fact remains, never in U.S. history has any anti-war or peace movement actually prevented or ceased a U.S. military operation or war. And yet continuously, anti-war movements in the United States fall into the same mold of ineffective activism that stands absolutely no chance of threatening or challenging the power structure of the U.S. government.
In the current day, protests in select locations such as Washington, DC, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, and more are considered successful due only to the numbers of people in attendance. The common argument is stated in defense of these activities that the message is getting out into the media and thus people in this country and around the world are learning that not everyone supports Bush�s war. Yet, from a strategical standpoint there is absolutely no realistic foundation to the belief that this form of public education can and will have any effect on the government�s decision to use military force in Iraq. Again, glancing back to the Vietnam period when the protests were even larger, when more people gathered and the tactics were even broader than those utilized today, Nixon refused to listen to the public and continued on with the war.
During the past few weeks cries have emerged from the �progressive� sectors of U.S. society concerning Bush�s statement that the anti-war movement is a mere focus group and would not effect his ultimate decision. This should provide at least some indication that the large parties � which some might call protests or rallies � are not capable of generating the needed pressure which could actually force the government to stop. If it hasn�t ever occurred throughout U.S. history and, arguably, the U.S. government is more powerful now than ever, there is no precedent on which to base this faulty behavior and activity. Yet, the large mainstream peace groups continue to give caring U.S. people false hope, that if they get involved in the movement there is actually a chance they can help stop the war.
If we are going to become serious about stopping this war, and even the U.S. led atrocities of tomorrow, we must be realistic about our strategies and tactics and actually begin to utilize those methodologies which can and will challenge the power structure of the country. Yes, I am speaking of direct action, but not the generalized version spouted freely today and used to describe primarily conscience serving endeavors. An action is direct if it actually gets in the way, prevents, or stops an injustice from occurring. Unfortunately, the government sanctioned peace parades do not fit into this description. Even though public education is an inherent necessity of any movement, the time for public education by relying upon corporate media�s interpretation of your events has long since passed � if it was ever valuable.
The only possibility of stopping this current military action is to engage in strategies and tactics which severely disrupt the war machine, the U.S. economy, and the overall functioning of U.S. society particularly how it relates to consumerism and the economy. Marches, picketing, rallies, parties, benefits, civil disobedience and even property destruction are pointless, and perhaps even counterproductive, unless they serve to severely disrupt the functioning of the political system and its economy. An atmosphere of severe unrest, if manufactured properly, will force the U.S. government to place military resources in the streets of the United States, will threaten the economy (the chief motive behind this military excursion) of the United States, and ultimately create a political atmosphere unfavorable for Bush to continue on with the war.
So how is an atmosphere of severe unrest and disruption generated? First and foremost, it must begin with our ability to look beyond the business as usual strategies and tactics that have failed miserably in the past. It must begin with our allegiance to come to terms with the realization that any and all tactics and strategies must be considered at least available for use. Next we must be willing to decipher exactly how the power of the political structure can be effectively challenged. Once this matter has been examined there is only one question remaining, will each of us become involved and use whatever tactics and strategies are necessary, or will we refuse and continue to engage solely in conduct which serves little other purpose than making people feel better about themselves.
Here are some suggestions for the necessary creation of an atmosphere of unrest and disruption in the United States.
1) Attack the financial centers of the country. Using covert or black block techniques, depending on the situation, physically shut down financial centers which regulate and assist the functioning of U.S. economy. This can be done in a variety of ways from massive property destruction, to online sabotage, to physical occupation of buildings. However the latter I would shy away from, especially the open civil disobedience type of activities which purposely involve arrests. This movement needs all the assistance it can get and absolutely NO good will come from going to jail. Allowing yourself to be purposely arrested demonstrates that an individual has at least some faith in the U.S. legal system. This is completely foolish. One primary objective is to engage in serious unrest and disruption and NOT to get caught. Not getting caught means you are able to continue the struggle the next day.
2) Large scale urban rioting. With massive unrest and even state of emergencies declared in major cities across the country, the U.S. government will be forced to send U.S. troops into the domestic arena thereby taking resources and political focus away from the war. Unstable conditions in much of the country also serve as a political embarrassment for the Administration and could assist in forcing them to stop the war to deal with domestic concerns. Rioting should be focused on governmental agencies and corporations � especially those that are profiting from the war or destruction of life.
3) Attack the media centers of the country. It is the corporate media who has and continues to influence and control the minds of the mass body of people in the United States. These new media outlets cannot be utilized by the movement as they are owned by the very corporations one should be opposing. Using any means necessary, shut down the national networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. Not just occupations but actually engage in strategies and tactics which knock the networks off the air.
4) Spread the battle to the individuals responsible for the war and destruction of life � the very heads of government and U.S. corporations. No longer should these people be able to hide behind their occupations, living their lives in peace while they simultaneously slaughter countless people. Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes, and make them feel personally responsible for committing massive atrocities.
5) Make it known publicly that this movement DOES NOT support U.S. troops as long as they are serving an unjust and horrifying political regime. Create an atmosphere lacking of support to assist U.S. troops at home and abroad in losing their morale and will to fight. If you are supporting the troops you are supporting this war and the very U.S. government that is the primary terrorist regime in the international arena.
6) Actively target U.S. military establishments within the United States. Again, following the above stated goal of NOT getting caught, use any means necessary to slow down the functioning of the murdering body.
7) When engaging in the above six activities, strike hard and fast and retreat in anonymity. Select another location, strike again hard and fast and quickly retreat in anonymity. Engage only in actions where you will be victorious. Do not be concerned with alienating the mainstream sectors of the movement � that mainstream has NEVER stopped a U.S. military activity or war. Do not get caught. DO NOT GET CAUGHT. Do not get sent to jail. Stay alert, keep active, and keep fighting. Remember, an action is only good (especially at this juncture in U.S. society) if it will serve to severely disrupt the political system of the country, its economy, and the corporate interests that drive this society.
These suggestions are not radical. They are merely recommendations for those that desire to actually have a chance at stopping this current military siege. As the peace or anti-war corporate organizations vocally oppose this message and its enclosed suggestions, continue to ask what realistic chance do their strategies and tactics have to actually stop this war? What historical precedent do their business as usual politics and policies have? As no peace or anti-war movement has ever stopped U.S. governmental military policies or activities using the state sanctioned and societal approved methods, what right do they have to give the caring public false hope?
Well over 500,000 Iraqi children have died since the Gulf War as a result of U.S. bombing and sanctions � not to mention thousands of innocent men and women. With the planned massive bombing campaign planned by the U.S. military, the death toll of the innocent will severely increase. And for what? The U.S. rhetorical line of �liberating the Iraqi people from dictator Saddam� is as much bullshit as our historical line of helping to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Surely Saddam is guilty of massive atrocities, but so are many other world leaders. Sure Saddam may have had or continue to have weapons of mass destruction, but so do many evil leaders of nations around the world. Just why is it we have not targeted Israel and Sharon in the same manner as Saddam? Why is it leaders of the United States have not targeted the U.S. government for its weapons of mass destruction and incredible history of terrorist and murderous atrocities? Similar to Bush Senior�s Gulf War, this is another war for U.S. corporations and for the protection and, more importantly, expansion of the U.S. economy. With the incredible oil reserves in the region and the potential for U.S. corporations to have a hand in building and ruling a future Iraq nation, the motives are quite obvious. Of course, it wouldn�t be just if the U.S. did not claim that it was taking action against a horrible dictator for humanitarian purposes.
As the U.S. led military campaign gets fully under way in the very near future, the question remains� how far is the anti-war movement in the United States willing to go to stop the U.S. government and its unceasing atrocities? How far are you willing to go, what are you willing to do to stop the massive bloodshed once again caused by the U.S. government?
Craig Rosebraugh
addenda for Little Precious the "Intellectual"
by Irving
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 9:52 AM
Here's where I got that, from one of your IndyMedias. Note it's been there for several months. And put Rosebraugh's name in a search, and see what gems you find about your "progressive' who never gets angry or hateful.
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/9125_comment.php#10251
The quality of Leftists is at all time lows....
no blood to power IndyMedia!
by Adam Wretched
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 10:49 AM
"Or the draining of its natural resources?"
Then might I suggest, Little Precious, that all the IndyMedias be shut down? The DU sewer? All the Leftist adolescent blogs?
After all, they need precious resources to operate. How much blood was spilled for oil used to generate the electricity to power the internet, the servers, which went into the manufacture of all the various components of your computer?
Are you going to give up your computer, Little Precious? Your Playstation? Your CD player? Are you going to show up at the mosh pit and demand the thrid rate garage band unplug it's amplifiers? Will you vandalize their equipment truck as the ELF and AlF types decree?
I'm waiting on your answer, Little Precious. That is, unless you really did give your computer away.
Yeah, right....
to my little precious fanboy
by Irving
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 11:54 AM
<i>"Or the destruction of its wetlands and forests?"</i>
<p>Haven't you heard, my little groupie, that the rainforest is now a culprit in global warming? Didn't you see my post with a link to your precious United Nations site?
<p>Now I ask you this - how does a bottom rung "intellectual" reconcile this?
bottom rung cliche' chanters
by Rebecca
Friday, Dec. 12, 2003 at 12:26 PM
Damn those mean widdle rainforests....
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20031202/449_10888.asp
Amazon Forest May Be Adding To Greenhouse Gases Tuesday, December 2, 2003
Parts of the Brazilian Amazon forest might be emitting more carbon dioxide than is absorbed, Brazilian and U.S. scientists said in a study published Friday in the magazine Science, adding that previous studies on the issue probably overstated the amount of the gas absorbed by the forest.
During a three-year inquiry, researchers from Universidade de Sao Paulo, the National Institute of Space Research and Harvard University measured levels of emission and absorption of the gas in the National Forest of Tapajos, in Para, nothern Brazil.
The scientists found that carbon dioxide emissions actually increased during rainy seasons, when decomposing foliage, set off by a high degree of humidity, released their carbon-rich emissions into the air. Scientists had previously believed that emissions only increased during dry seasons (Reinaldo Jose Lopes, Folha de Sao Paulo, Nov. 28, U.N. Wire translation).
One of the main proposals of the Kyoto Protocol, which targets a decrease of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, is to slow deforestation and increase incentives for planting new forests. According to BBC Brasil, the result of the latest study supports previous statements from some environmentalists that politicians developed the protocol based on the now dubious role forests play in cutting gas emissions (BBC Brasil, Nov. 28, U.N. Wire translation).
Yawn...
by Rebecca
Saturday, Dec. 13, 2003 at 5:30 AM
Hey Irv... You have to stop recycling those same 3 arguments ("the rainforests cause global warming" - "leftists do nothing about the burka" and something about "golf courses and womyn" that I never quite grasped) 'cos it's left the realm of the bizzarely entertaining and is getting kind of predictable.
Why worry anyway since, the way things are going, there will be no Amazon rainforest left within a timeline of 20-50 years, so we can all breathe in that nice fresh oxygen again, right?
Why not hang your Arnie doll on your Hummer mirror Irving and go take a drive, the cabin fever's setting in again...
wake up and go back to sleep
by Irving
Saturday, Dec. 13, 2003 at 10:14 AM
What's the matter? Don't like my broken record? Some of us are sick of yours, too. You know, the same old programmable phrases which you can recite while sleepwalking.
You don't like me because I dare to hold that mirror in front of you. My kind holds you people to what you say and do, (or usually say yet don't do).
And I personally didn't invent the ridiculousness of feminists and golf courses. It's one of the things in the last year that makes you Leftists look so irrelevant and silly. If you don't even know about it, might I suggest you read up on it before coming after me? It makes you look bad, commenting on something you know basically nothing of. Makes as much sense as me making fun of the Camilla deal, which doesn't impact me directly, and which I don't know enough of or care since tabloid "journalism" isn't my, er, um, cup of tea. (Page 3 and Jo Hicks is it's only saving grace, perhaps).
Put "Martha Burk" and "PGA" in a Google search.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)