Archive for November, 2011


Editorial Note: Reminiscent of the WWII internment camps in which Japanese-Americans were stripped of their civil liberties, detention camps have been built across the US and are ready to imprison up to 2 million Americans deemed “terrorists”… for a list of Terrorist-Americans, please see “Who’s a Terrorist?

Click HERE to find your local concentration camp.

Posted by Shadow Government

On February 17, 2006, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the country’s security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called “news informers” who needed to be combated in “a contest of wills.” In 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants.”

A Defense Department document, entitled the “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Supp.ort,” has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an “active, layered defense” both inside and outside U.S. territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to “transform U.S. military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the . . . U.S. homeland.” The strategy calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance.

The Washington Post reported on February 15, 2006 that the National Counterterrorism Center’s (NCTC) central repository holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a fourfold increase since fall of 2003. A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity’s TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters.

Shortly after Bush orchestrated 9/11, he issued “Military Order Number One”, which empowered him to detain any noncitizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant. Today that order extends to U.S. citizens as well.

Halliburton subsidiary “KBR has been awarded a contract announced by the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component. The Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contingency contract is to support ICE facilities and has a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term. The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the United States, or to support the rapid development of new programs”.

click image for summary of "civilian inmate labor program"

Why exactly are prisons being built for “the rapid development of new programs”. Halliburton’s company site confirms that the government is engaged in a massive construction and preparation exercise to build concentration camps and prisoner processing facilities in the United States. This is particularity astonishing and disturbing considering that the U.S. already incarcerates more orders of magnitude more people than any other nation, about on-par with U.S.S.R. at the height of Stalin’s era.

The contract of the Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build immigrant detention facilities is part of a longer-term Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.” In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed similar emergency detention powers as part of a super-secret program of planning for what was euphemistically called “Continuity of Government” (COG). These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any “national security emergency,” which they vaguely defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988.

Continue reading HERE.

by Charlie Savage (New York Times)

WASHINGTON — Defying the Obama administration’s threat of a veto, the Senate on Tuesday voted to increase the role of the military in imprisoning suspected members of Al Qaeda and its allies — including people arrested inside the United States.

By a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate turned back an effort to strip a major military bill of a set of disputed provisions affecting the handling of terrorism cases. While the legislation still has several steps to go, the vote makes it likely that Congress will eventually send to President Obama’s desk a bill that contains detainee-related provisions his national-security team has said are unacceptable.

The most disputed provision would require the government to place into military custody any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies. The provision would exempt American citizens, but would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.

A related provision would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens. It is intended to bolster the authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which lawmakers enacted a decade ago.

The administration has strongly opposed the mandatory military custody provision, saying it “would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

Continue reading

by Stephen Lendman (The Intel Hub)

Congress is now considering legislative language to mandate indefinite military detentions of US citizens suspected of present or past associations with alleged terrorist groups, with or without evidence to prove it. More on that below.

The 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), hold them (without evidence) indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other constitutional protections.

Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA). The phrase “unprivileged enemy belligerent” replaced “unlawful enemy combatant.”

Language changed but not intent or lawlessness. Obama embraces the same Bush agenda, including keeping Guantanamo open after promising to close it, allowing torture there and abroad, and treating US citizens as lawlessly as foreign nationals.

MCA grants sweeping police state powers, including that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever….relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures….”

MCA scraped habeas protection (dating back to the 1215 Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign state enemies, citizens and non-citizens alike.

It says “Any person is punishable… who….aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures,” and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provide “material support” to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts. No evidence is needed. Those charged are guilty by accusation.

Other key provisions include:

  • legalizing torture against anyone, letting the president decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;
  • denying detainees international law protection;
  • letting the executive interpret or ignore international and US law;
  • letting the president convene “military commissions” at his discretion to try anyone he designates an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” detaining them indefinitely in secret;
  • denying speedy trials or none at all;
  • letting torture coerced confessions be used as evidence in trial proceedings, despite US and international law prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions;
  • letting hearsay and secret evidence be used; and
  • denying due process and judicial fairness overall.

On May 21, 2009, Obama addressed national security and civil liberties issues, including Guantanamo detainees, military commissions, and torture.

Continue reading

by Sybelle Foxcroft (Cee4life)

What I do in cee4life is to hunt poachers, usually of the tiger, and expose wildlife traders, along with conservation and environmental education.

However, I have a great deal of contacts who are in the field and when things get desperate they will contact me to put out my feelers to seek help for them. In regard to the these particular rhino, I have been able to get this information to an anti-poaching friend of mine in Africa who is now trying to get some help to the farmers.

You know from where I stand, fighting a war to protect our animals is not controversial at all. I have been a solider (medical sargeant) in the Australian army for 20 years, and these poachers are totally militant, and they are using military tactics, they will shoot to kill and have killed many people. My anti-poaching friends name is Damien Mander and he runs the IAPF in Africa. He is an ex-Australian soldier who trained troops in Iraq. He knows that he may be killed doing his work.

The threats dont get any more real than this, it is a war. There is no fluffy negotiations with these people, unless of course you have millions of dollars to give them.

There are people out there in the world that would like to think that conservation is all happy and cuddling animals or having a few harsh words while tying yourself to a tree, but that just isnt the case.

Numerous conservationists have been murdered or mysteriously killed, they just arent making the headlines. People might need to be reminded of the well known murders of Dian Fossey, or George Adamson, and then there are all the others, numerous anti-poachers have been killed, conservationists mysteriously disappearing and one such case strangely dying of poisoning etc. I have been working on a report to release to the people in regard to the deaths of so many conservationists, animal advocates, and anti-poachers.

My personal accountant with life threats came direct from inside the Tiger Temple, where I was told I would not make it out of Thailand. I had to contact the Australian Embassy who told me to they feared for my life and I had to run for 4 hours until I made it to Bangkok. And these people hide behind the monks robes and the buddhist faith. I have nothing against religion except for the people who use it as something that shields them from there vile acts.

There was no doubt that the Australian Embassy thought I would disappear off the face of the earth, and they told me this. I managed to record some of the threats though. I get threatened alot, usually from people who may have money to loose if a place of animal abuse is exposed.

I will have a talk to the person who is monitoring/protecting the rhinos over in hoedspruit, they currently didnt want their name known, however he may be interested in telling you about these things.

The majority of people who contact me asking me ‘what can they do’ have grown extremely tired of only being able to sign petitions or donate to somewhere. They are sick of giving and speaking and trusting in either Governments or conservation groups that claim to be saving these creatures, yet still species are spiralling into extinction.

There are some that have told me they are selling all their belongings and are heading to ‘shoot the poachers’ in places like Africa and India, because they have no idea how else to stop the slaughter.

There is a fast growing movement for hands on action, people wanting to band together and form small militant type groups to fight the poachers. That seems acceptable to me, except for the fact that most of these people have no military training, and the poachers do.

So unless someone has the guts to recognise the war that is raging for our animals, then it will escalate into a true war zone, and many lives will be lost.

And all of this is preventable.

It is easy for many to give in to the anger and devastation of the murder of our creatures, it is understandable. How many more slaughters and murders can people take before they break and hunt the hunters.

Many people forget that the Government is there to work for the people (well, most…) so this is a peaceful way of showing the Governments what the people want. And that is to get rid of the poachers, expose the medicinal myths of animal body part use TCM, and protect the last of the wild things.

But I dont know how long the ‘peaceful’ side will last.

A fire is raging in thousands of people and if it ignites, it will burn fiercely.

Follow the campaigns against student vivisectors (WOS) & animal experimentation at the University of Florida & HERE.

To submit an article for publication, send a note to camille@negotiationisover.com.

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. There is no intent, express or implied, to promote illegal activities. We assume no liability for the potential actions of any third party. All data compiled here has been gathered from, and is available through, independent public sources.

Posted by FOX Business

The cost of doing business for big pharma is rising – dramatically. And it’s not because of research and development of new blockbusters to cure cancer, alleviate pain or help people get a good night’s sleep.

Merck (NYSE: MRK) on Tuesday said it will pay $950 million to settle criminal and civil allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice related to Merck’s marketing of Vioxx, a widely-used painkiller that was pulled from the shelves in 2004 after a study revealed the drug increased the risk of heart attacks.

To make a very long story short, prosecutors believed Merck knew the drug posed a threat but lied about the potential risks in its marketing and sold it anyway. Why not? The drug raked in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2003.

The astounding thing about the Merck settlement is that it’s not even the largest of its kind this month.

Three weeks ago, British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK: 42.35, +0.85, +2.05%), which, like Merck, has extensive operations in the U.S., reached a $3 billion settlement related to sprawling allegations tied to that company’s marketing of its diabetes drug Avandia.

The GlaxoSmithKline deal broke a record, topping a $2.3 billion settlement reached by Pfizer in September of 2009. And Pfizer’s deal came hard on the heels of a $1.4 billion settlement reached by Eli Lilly in January of 2009.

So, for those keeping score, Merck’s payout ranks fourth on the all-time list of massive settlements stemming from allegations of fraudulent marketing tactics by giant pharmaceutical companies.

Wall Street takes these settlements in stride, shrugging them off as “the cost of doing business.” To wit, a note to investors from Barclays Capital analyst Brian Bourdot earlier this month in the wake of the record-breaking Glaxo deal: “We regard such disputes as an innate risk for large multinational pharmaceutical companies,” the analyst wrote in a note published in the New York Times.

Indeed, Glaxo’s shares have barely moved since the Nov. 3 announcement of the huge settlement, and its shares are up more than 3% from a year ago. Merck’s shares we down 50 cents, or 1.48%, Wednesday. But that had little (if anything) to do with Tuesday’s announcement and everything to do with another broad market selloff tied to Europe’s debt crisis.

The fines levied against big pharma have gotten markedly bigger in recent years, perhaps growing in direct proportion to the industry’s desperate need to generate additional revenues. Profit growth has stalled over the past five years as, one after another, the companies have lost huge revenues as patents have expired on blockbuster drugs and competition from cheaper generic products has eaten away market share.

That loss of revenue has created intense pressure on companies like Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to either come up with new blockbusters or wring every last nickel out of the blockbusters they still market.

In the next year or so 10 of the top selling blockbuster (sales of $1 billion or more) prescription drugs will see their patents expire, which will allow competition from generic products. This is good news for consumers but not so much for the drug companies that make the blockbusters.

Pfizer’s cholesterol fighter Lipitor is probably the most well-known and widely-used of these blockbusters. Lipitor earned Pfizer $11 billion in 2010 ($5.3 billion in the U.S. alone), but a generic version is now available. Merck’s Singulair, used by asthma sufferers, took in $5 billion in 2010. A generic version is due next summer.

To put big pharma’s recent settlement figures into perspective, consider the following: in July 2010 Goldman Sachs (GS: 91.59, +2.84, +3.20%) reached a record-breaking settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to charges of fraud. Goldman allegedly profited from securities it created and sold to its own clients, products Goldman knew from the outset were lousy investments.

Goldman’s fine, touted by the SEC at the time as the “largest-ever penalty paid by a Wall Street firm,” was a mere $550 million, a sum that wouldn’t even crack the top 10 for drug company settlements.

Cynics suggest the reason Wall Street fines pale in comparison to those shelled out by big pharma is that Wall Street wields far more power in Washington, D.C. Political contribution figures compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics bear this out: in the 2010 election cycle financial sector interests contributed $317 million to federal candidates and committees, according to the CRP. Big pharma, meanwhile, contributed $31.6 million.

Do the math.

Posted by the ACLU

Yesterday, the ACLU and over 30 other organizations sent a letter to the Senate asking them to oppose an effort in Congress that threatens to revive the use of torture and other inhumane interrogation techniques. If passed, an amendment introduced by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to the Defense Authorization bill would roll back torture prevention measures that Congress overwhelmingly approved in the 2005 McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, as well as a 2009 Executive Order on ensuring lawful interrogations. It would also require the administration to create a secret list of approved interrogation techniques in a classified annex to the existing interrogation field manual.

In a related development, republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann renewed her attack on the prohibition of waterboarding and other forms of torture in her claim that the ACLU runs interrogations. But in fact, the director of the CIA, General David Petraeus and the Secretary of Defense (and former CIA Director) Leon Panetta have both said that the 2009 Executive Order applying the Army Field Manual government-wide and the 2005 McCain Anti-Torture Amendment work and are consistent with good national security.

Such a move to undermine these protections in the Senate would fly in the face of American values and U.S. legal obligations, and would obstruct U.S. military missions and endanger troops deployed abroad. The ACLU is far from alone in opposing the use of torture. Senior military officers and interrogation experts agree that U.S. interrogators need not and should not resort to so-called enhanced methods of interrogation because they are unnecessary and counterproductive. Even the Bush Defense Department opposed the inclusion of a secret annex to the military’s interrogation manual because such secrecy would inhibit training and obstruct collaboration with our allies in the field.

Our letter argues that we “cannot afford to return to practices that degraded our country in the eyes of the general public,” and asks the Senate to oppose the Ayotte Amendment. You can join our call by asking your Senators to oppose Amendment 1068.

The Senate will return to the Defense Authorization bill next week (we’re also fighting indefinite detention provisions tucked inside the bill — you can read more details here).

Posted by Nathan J. Winograd

Introducing a New Tool for No Kill Advocacy: The No Kill Flash Mob

Beginning November 23 at 6 pm ET and continuing over the holiday weekend when our posts are less likely to be deleted, please join us in a No Kill flash mob on the ASPCA facebook page. Please share.

The ASPCA Facebook page is filled with uninformed animal lovers who erroneously believe that the ASPCA is a legitimate force for good. We must educate these people about what the ASPCA really represents: a continuation of killing in our nation’s shelters and the neglect of animals in the New York City pound just down the street from the ASPCA, the wealthiest animal protection organization in the nation.

Although single comments can be deleted, and although single comments can be easily dismissed by their Facebook followers, a flood of comments posted by No Kill advocates is harder for the ASPCA to manage, and less likely to be ignored by their Facebook followers as an aberration.

Beginning November 23 at 6 pm ET and continuing over the holiday weekend when our posts are less likely to be deleted, please join us in a No Kill flash mob on the ASPCA facebook page. Please comment on the 5 most recent wall postings, not just the most current one. Although you will have to “like” the page to comment, you can “unlike” it after the flash mob ends. Let’s educate their followers about what supporting the ASPCA really means!

The Real ASPCA

Over the past several weeks, the ASPCA has released a playbook on how to fight No Kill reform efforts and has referred to animal lovers who want to end the killing as “extremists.” At a national conference of shelter directors, one of their paid consultants referred to No Kill groups as “terrorist” organizations, and No Kill advocates as “psychos.” And they are fighting shelter reform legislation in New York and Florida which would save shelter animals on death row who have a place to go—all while taking in roughly $140,000,000 per year through commercials that prey on the emotions of animal lovers with the false message that the ASPCA will fight for animals, rather than against them.
Although the pace of the ASPCA’s anti-no Kill efforts seems to have accelerated over the past few weeks, the ASPCA has a long sordid history of not only fighting reform efforts nationwide, but of neglecting the needs of the animals suffering in the city shelter down the street, even sending animals to be killed there. As they muster their forces against our expanding No Kill efforts nationwide, we need to fight back by hitting them where it matters most: in the pocketbook. We need to reach out to their donors with the truth. And the best place to do that is to go where they are: the ASPCA Facebook page.

Following are some talking points and links you can consider providing in your post:

Naomi Wolf

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that “New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers” covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that “It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk.”

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on “how to suppress” Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors’, city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually “OWS has no message”. Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online “What is it you want?” answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, “we are going after these scruffy hippies”. Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women’s wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the “scandal” of presidential contender Newt Gingrich’s having been paid $1.8m for a few hours’ “consulting” to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies’ profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists’ privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can’t suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

by Dr. Steven Best

Pacifism is the Dogma of Dogmas. Non-pacifists or pluralists (neither of whom advance positions which are tantamount to the “pro-violence” position pacifists reduce them to) with even minimal experience “debating” pacifists quickly learn to identify a common pattern and tapestry of fallacies:

  • Pacifists do not employ reasoned arguments, rather they mobilize clichés (e.g.: “Violence only leads to more violence,” “Violence has never accomplished anything,” or “An eye for a eye makes the whole world blind”). Just as vivisectors invidiously credit all medical advances to animal experimentation alone (rather than to better sanitation, improved nutrition, healthier lifestyles, or epidemiology), so pacifists insist non-violence has been the sole driving force of progressive social change
  • Pacifists do not think or listen, they merely repeat the words of Gandhi, King, and the Dali Lama
  • Pacifists do not know history or, if at all, only the caricatured, whitewashed, cartoon version in which all great gains in rights, justice, and freedom are won by non-violent tactics alone, when in fact social change always results from a plurality of forces and tactics that work together in complimentary ways
  • Pacifists think in rigid either/or, black-and-white, and Manichean good or evil binaries, and their minds cannot grasp the fluid and dialectical nature of social change, which results from many different tactics and groups, and which grasps how nonviolent and violent means of resistance
  • Pacifists rely on a naïve Socratic-Enlightenment theory of human nature and psychology, which says that people only do wrong because they do not know the right. This ancient error continues to prevail dominate contemporary ideology despite advances in evolutionary psychology and the Nietzschean-Freudian insights into the animalic urges, instincts, Id, and irrational/subconscious forces of human life.
  • Thus, operating with an obsolete and false model of human nature, pacifists (1) grossly overestimate the power of education and moral persuasion as motivating forces, and are especially ineffective when directed at individuals, groups, corporations, or entire states that have vested material interests in exploiting and killing for profit; and consequently, pacifists (2) greatly underestimate (or rather altogether negate) the need for more coercive tactics such as sabotage to change social relationships. No one voluntarily concedes their privileges and power to someone else because they ask nicely; power is always taken, never given..

For some stimulating remarks on democratizing violence as an effective tool of struggle, see this excerpt from Jensen’s book, Endgame.

%d bloggers like this: