Peaceful protest movement infiltrators Mark Kennedy, Lyn Watson, cops Karen Sullivan, Daniela Cardenas unmasked

enlargeSocial justice activists across the US are uniting January 25 to protest the infiltration of peaceful protest groups by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. As European environmental organizations reel from the revelation that high-profile activist “Mark Stone,” really PC Mark Kennedy, served undercover for London’s MET for seven years, the Guardian has confirmed another unnamed infiltrator, identified by activist sources as “Lyn Watson.” A longtime Leeds Common Place volunteer, Watson is reportedly serving at another undercover location. enlargeKennedy is in the US evading the blowback of many EU and UK former comrades. As US lawyers fend off grand jury inquiries against chiefly Palestinian-rights advocacy groups, the Minneapolis based Anti-War Committee has obtained confirmation that FBI agent “Karen Sullivan” had been disrupting from their midst since the 2008 RNC. A “Daniela Cardenas” is considered to be her accomplice.

While accounts vary between MET officer Mark Kennedy “going native” and privatizing his surveillance services, there are reports that Kennedy had been sexually intimate with a number of the activists he had been infiltrating. The role of “Lyn Watson” becomes critical because her reports would reflect that the authorities knew of and did not halt officer Kennedy’s improper conduct.

Green activist are debating the merits of releasing details about the infiltrators. Save Iceland made this excellent statement about Kennedy.

UPDATE UK:
To prevent further details from going public, the comments section has been disabled for the original Guardian article which refuses to name, or unscramble to photograph of Officer A, aka Lyn Watson. A subsequent UK Indymedia article has been deleted together with its thread. Discussion persists at another IMC in Sheffield now suffering under a common ISP hobble of sites designed to serve secure pages through HTTPS, having its certificate called into doubt. As a result visitors are warned by their browser that the site cannot be trusted until they finally desist from clicking through. For the benefit of those timid souls we reprint the comment thread, as of 4PM GMT.

Hold on …
13.01.2011 09:54

It says she disappeared in 2008, but someone is quoted saying “she was present at Drax and Heathrow climate camp actions, against Coryton oil refinery and various anti-capitalist gatherings and protests” … but the Coryton blockade was last year. Or was there some other Coryton action I wasn’t aware of?

Shame the Guardian took representations from the cops and no one else. They’ve even decided against a comments section – maybe in case someone decided to put her name up.

I might be missing some key piece of info or argument here, but I really think people have GOT to post her identity up here – people will want to know what info the state now definitely has on them etc.
proof-reader
Her activist name was…
13.01.2011 10:12

Lyn Watson. Haven’t got a photo though.
Someone
there was a earlier coryton blockade
13.01.2011 10:26

,,, on fossil fools day. yeah, i don’t see a problem in posting her (false) name… though in general i’m not sure what feeding this story is doing for our movement… though i am perfectly aware their is a wider public interest at stake…but it may cost us dear.
old timer
Media Whores
13.01.2011 11:43

Knew it was only a time before Dr Chatterton got his name in print. Seems to be one rule for the oi polloi and one for the careerists.
ACAB
No news here
13.01.2011 12:04

She came under suspicion long before Flash Mark did. When he was confronted, hers was the name put to him and he, apparently, said she was part of the “same unit” as he was, but was otherwise not forthcoming. She was long gone by then.
Stroppyoldgit
She may not have put it about like Shagger Stone…
13.01.2011 12:09

But Lynn certainly wasn’t averse to a roll in the hay.
Sleaze-watch
To say or not to say
13.01.2011 13:07

I can see both sides of the argument about how much to say about these spies.

On the one hand saying what has been going on will get some sympathy. On the other it reveals the spies who have been spotted, which tells the enemy which spies have not been spotted.

I come down slightly on the side of exposing them to the light of day. Circulate their photograph and brief details widely, together with what they were up to. This will allow those involved with them to realise who they are, even if they used a different name. The police and other forces of darkness will suffer more from the truth than we will.

A N Other
Thanks for the pic
13.01.2011 13:52

Many thanks for putting a pic up. Does anyone have a better one though. I’ve been told that I definitely know this woman, but can’t think who she is/was.
Leeds activist
medic?
13.01.2011 14:21

Am I correct in thinking she was involved in our medic collective?
fleabite
Guardian website
13.01.2011 15:12

I have been keeping an eye on the Guardian web site http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/12/second-undercover-police-officer to see what people had to say.

They opened up coments then suddenly stopped them, including not just saying that some comments had been removed by a moderator but deleting them entirely as if they never were. The entirely deleted comments are the ones that point to Indymedia and this thread in particular.

Possibly after “Officer A” was withdrawn from her unethical activities against campaigners she was pointed towards groups she should have been working against all the time, criminals. Unlike campaigners criminals may not be too kind to her.

If that is the case I have limited sympathy for her. Injury or death is not right, even for a maggot like her, though she deserves any verbal attack she gets for spying on campaigners. Her bosses got her into whatever situation she is now in, they should get her out of it.

Time to make sure information about her is spread widely, so the police can’t attack a single point like Indymedia and suppress the information.

A N Other

Counterfeiting Iran’s Green Movement

Iranian banknotes
Here’s an interesting twist on currency counterfeiting: the forged defacement of Iranian banknotes. Sure it’s a real bill, with real doodles, but did it circulate beyond anyone’s kitchen table? Hmm.

At this moment, Iranian students are protesting a video aired by the government purporting to depict demonstrators defiling a poster of the Ayatollah. They assert the footage was fabricated to accuse them of being counter-revolutionaries. In such a climate, how likely is it students are defacing his image on currency and then passing it on?

It appears to me, this “Banknote Uprising” meme is a shameless and unimaginative contrivance, devised in some expat’s Parisian apartment, to pretend Tehran is being flooded with green-marked bills, hoping to prompt real Iranians to take real risks for such a scheme.

A French account quotes a “Alireza, an artist and journalist in Tehran.”

“Mirhossein Mousavi asked young people to use their imagination. And that’s what they’ve done. These banknotes, marked with images and slogans, are everywhere. I have some myself. The central bank tried to take them out of circulation, but there are so many, they had to give up on the idea. For the young people it’s a way of saying ‘We’re here. The green movement is still going on.'”

You can trace the “Banknote Uprising” story from here to here. A closer source being perhaps here. None offer a hint about from where the bills emerged, or even why we should conclude they have been penned by students.

Customizing currency is an easy thing to do in the privacy of your own home, you can even mount and frame your work, or immortalize it on the internet. But is it fair to pretend it passed through the hands of accomplices and ordinary citizens, merchants and bankers, and back again?

Even in America, imagine writing something unpopular on a bill, and trying to convince a local business owner to accept it, knowing he has to exchange it with others, make the same pitch, and ultimately someone has to cough it up to a bank teller. In America the only penalty you face is the proverbial admonishment that it’s a federal crime to deface US currency, yada yada. But what if the person on the other side of the transaction is really offended? Can you do it anonymously? Money passing hands is the very definition of paper trail.

The gist of this meme is to suggest that disenfranchisement with the government is so prevalent that dissenting slogans are circulating freely as citizens pass money from one to another. Is that true? It supports the theory that the last elections in Iran were stolen. But no evidence of fraud has emerged except as made by the US-backed reform parties. The usual international election watchdogs do not report the wrongdoings they observed in abundance in Afghanistan for example.

Writing slogans on currency is not uncommon. Before the last election, I know people who wrote pro-Obama on every bill that passed their hands. Before that there was always something cute to pass along on dollar bills. Kilroy was here, maybe? But I don’t recall any examples of those marked bills or others, coming back.

The Green Movement protesters of Tehran deserve our admiration for their heroism. Not because they represent a democratic uprising, but for being caught between a repressive system, and Western agitators bent on contriving dissent to serve their own goals of regime change.

I think the forgers give themselves away with their choice of slogans. Have a gander at: Khamenei the non-believer is servant of Putin. OR They stole oil money and give it to Chavez. Best of all are the photos of half-dozen bills marked with a rubber stamp, arrayed before the stamp and ink pad. That’s a how-to illustration, not evidence of currency floating through the market.

Shah of Iran on banknoteThe reporting references Iran’s cultural heritage of marking banknotes with dissenting messages. An example is provided of a banknote with the image of the Shah of Iran, defaced by a rubber stamp on the occasion of the Islamic Revolution. But that’s quite another case, where Iran’s currency couldn’t be pulled immediately upon the Shah’s downfall. The existing bills had to be laundered with an official stamp until new bills could be printed to replace them.

Banknote Uprising we can wish. Do it yourself, but don’t con others into acts you’re not foolhardy enough to try yourself.

Rock Creek Free Press available in COS

The Rock Creek Free Press is available online, but if you want it in print, the DC monthly is available in Colorado Springs at the Bookman, 3163 W. Colorado. The September issue features a speech given by legendary Australian journalist John Pilger on July 4th in San Francisco.

Here’s the RCFP transcript:

Two years ago I spoke at “Socialism in Chicago” about an invisible government which is a term used by Edward Bernays, one the founders of modern propaganda. It was Bernays, who in the 1920s invented public relations as a euphemism for propaganda. And it was Bernays, deploying the ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud, who campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry for women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation calling cigarettes “tortures of freedom”. At the same time he was involved in the disinformation which was critical in overthrowing the Arbenz government in Guatemala. So you have the association of cigarettes and regime change. The invisible government that Bernays had in mind brought together all media: PR, the press, broadcasting, advertising and their power of branding and image making. In other words, disinformation.

And I suppose I would like to talk today about this invisible government’s most recent achievement, the rise of Barrack Obama and the silencing of much of the left. But all of this has a history, of course and I’d like to go back, take you back some forty years to a sultry and, for me, very memorable day in Viet Nam.

I was a young war correspondent who had just arrived in a village in the Central Highlands called Tuylon. My assignment was to write about a unit of US Marines who had been sent to the village to win hearts and minds. “My orders,” said the Marine Sergeant, “are to sell the American way of liberty, as stated in the Pacification Handbook, this is designed to win the hearts and minds of folks as stated on page 86.” Now, page 86 was headed in capital letters: WHAM (winning hearts and minds). The Marine Unit was a combined action company which explained the Sergeant, meant, “We attack these folks on Mondays and we win their hearts and minds on Tuesdays.” He was joking, of course, but not quite.

The Sergeant, who didn’t speak Vietnamese, had arrived in the village, stood up on a Jeep and said through a bullhorn: “Come on out everybody we’ve got rice and candies and toothbrushes to give you.” This was greeted by silence. “Now listen, either you gooks come on out or we’re going to come right in there and get you!” Now the people of Tuylon finally came out and they stood in line to receive packets of Uncle Ben’s Miracle Rice, Hershey Bars, party balloons, and several thousand toothbrushes. Three portable, battery operated, yellow, flush lavatories were held back for the arrival of the colonel.

And when the colonel arrived that evening, the district chief was summoned and the yellow, flush lavatories unveiled. The colonel cleared his throat and took out a handwritten speech,

“Mr. District Chief and all you nice people,” said the colonel, “what these gifts represent is more than the sum of their parts, they carry the spirit of America. Ladies and gentlemen there’s no place on Earth like America, it’s the land where miracles happen, it’s a guiding light for me and for you. In America, you see, we count ourselves as real lucky as having the greatest democracy the world has ever known and we want you nice people to share in our good fortune.”

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, even John Winthrope sitting upon a hill got a mention. All that was missing was the Star Bangled Banner playing softly in the background. Of course the villagers had no idea what the colonel was talking about, but when the Marines clapped, they clapped. And when the colonel waved, the children waved. And when he departed the colonel shook the Sergeant’s hand and said: “We’ve got plenty of hearts and minds here, carry on Sergeant.” “Yes Sir.” In Viet Nam I witnessed many scenes like that.

I’d grown up in faraway Australia on a cinematic diet of John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Walt Disney, and Ronald Reagan. The American way of liberty they portrayed might well have been lifted from the WHAM handbook. I’d learned that the United States had won World War II on its own and now led the free world as the chosen society. It was only later when I read Walter Lippmann’s book, Public Opinion, a manual of the invisible government, that I began to understand the power of emotions attached to false ideas and bad histories on a grand scale.

Now, historians call this exceptionalism, the notion that the United States has a divine right to bring what it calls “liberty” to the rest of humanity. Of course this is a very old refrain. The French and British created and celebrated their own civilizing missions while imposing colonial regimes that denied basic civil liberties. However, the power of the American message was, and remains, different. Whereas the Europeans were proud imperialists, Americans are trained to deny their imperialism. As Mexico was conquered and the Marines sent to Nicaragua, American textbooks referred to an Age of Innocence. American motives were always well meaning, moral, exceptional, as the colonel said, “There was no ideology” and that’s still the case.

Americanism is an ideology that is unique because its main feature is its denial that it is an ideology. It’s both conservative and it’s liberal. And it’s right and it’s left. And Barack Obama is its embodiment. Since Obama was elected leading liberals have talked about America returning to its true status as, “a nation of moral ideals”. Those are the words of Paul Krugman, the liberal columnist of The New York Times. In the San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Mark Morford wrote,

“Spiritually advanced people regard the new president as a light worker who can help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”

Tell that to an Afghan child whose family has been blown away by Obama’s bombs. Or a Pakistani child whose house has been visited by one of Obama’s drones. Or a Palestinian child surveying the carnage in Gaza caused by American “smart” weapons, which, disclosed Seymour Hersh, were re-supplied to Israel for use in the slaughter, and I quote; “Only after the Obama team let if be known, it would not object.” The man who stayed silent on Gaza is the man who now condemns Iran.

In a sense, Obama is the myth that is America’s last taboo. His most consistent theme was never “change”, it was power. “The United States,” he said, “leads the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.” And there is this remarkable statement, “At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world; that we stood and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.” Words like these remind me of the colonel in the village in Viet Nam, as he spun much the same nonsense.

Since 1945, by deed and by example, to use Obama’s words, America has overthrown 50 governments, including democracies, and crushed some 30 liberation movements and bombed countless men, women, and children to death. I’m grateful to Bill Blum for his cataloging of that. And yet, here is the 45th (sic) president of the United States having stacked his government with war mongers and corporate fraudsters and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras, promising, not only more of the same, but a whole new war in Pakistan. Justified by the murderous clichés of Hilary Clinton, clichés like, “high value targets”. Within three days of his inauguration, Obama was ordering the death of people in faraway countries: Pakistan and Afghanistan. And yet, the peace movement, it seems, is prepared to look the other way and believe that the cool Obama will restore, as Krugman wrote, “the nation of moral ideals.”

Not long ago, I visited the American Museum of History in the celebrated Smithsonian Institute in Washington. One of the most popular exhibitions was called “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War”. It was holiday time and lines of happy people, including many children, shuffled through a Santa’s grotto of war and conquest. When messages about their nation’s great mission were lit up; these included tributes to the; “…exceptional Americans who saved a million lives…” in Viet Nam; where they were, “…determined to stop Communist expansion.” In Iraq other brave Americans, “employed air-strikes of unprecedented precision.” What was shocking was not so much the revisionism of two of the epic crimes of modern times, but the shear scale of omission.

Like all US presidents, Bush and Obama have very much in common. The wars of both presidents and the wars of Clinton and Reagan, Carter and Ford, Nixon and Kennedy are justified by the enduring myth of exceptional America. A myth the late Harold Pinter described as, “a brilliant, witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

The clever young man who recently made it to the White House is a very fine hypnotist; partly because it is indeed extraordinary to see an African American at the pinnacle of power in the land of slavery. However, this is the 21st century and race together with gender, and even class, can be very seductive tools of propaganda. For what is so often overlooked and what matters, I believe above all, is the class one serves. George Bush’s inner circle from the State Department to the Supreme Court was perhaps the most multi-racial in presidential history. It was PC par excellence. Think Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell. It was also the most reactionary. Obama’s very presence in the White House appears to reaffirm the moral nation. He’s a marketing dream. But like Calvin Klein or Benetton, he’s a brand that promises something special, something exciting, almost risqué. As if he might be radical. As if he might enact change. He makes people feel good; he’s a post-modern man with no political baggage. And all that’s fake.

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama refers to the job he took after he graduated from Columbia in 1983; he describes his employer as, “…a consulting house to multi-national corporations.” For some reason he doesn’t say who his employer was or what he did there. The employer was Business International Corporation; which has a long history of providing cover for the CIA with covert action and infiltrating unions from the left. I know this because it was especially active in my own country, Australia. Obama doesn’t say what he did at Business International and they may be absolutely nothing sinister. But it seems worthy of inquiry, and debate, as a clue to, perhaps, who the man is.

During his brief period in the senate, Obama voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for the Patriot Act. He refused to support a bill for single payer health care. He supported the death penalty. As a presidential candidate he received more corporate backing than John McCain. He promised to close Guantanamo as a priority, but instead he has excused torture, reinstated military commissions, kept the Bush gulag intact, and opposed habeas corpus.

Daniel Ellsberg, the great whistleblower, was right, I believe, when he said, that under Bush a military coup had taken place in the United States giving the Pentagon unprecedented powers. These powers have been reinforced by the presence of Robert Gates – a Bush family crony and George W. Bush’s powerful Secretary of Defense. And by all the Bush Pentagon officials and generals who have kept their jobs under Obama.

In the middle of a recession, with millions of Americans losing their jobs and homes, Obama has increased the military budget. In Colombia he is planning to spend 46 million dollars on a new military base that will support a regime backed by death squads and further the tragic history of Washington’s intervention in that region.

In a pseudo-event in Prague, Obama promised a world without nuclear weapons to a global audience, mostly unaware that America is building new tactical nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. Like George Bush, he used the absurdity of Europe threatened by Iran to justify building a missile system aimed at Russia and China. In another pseudo-event, at the Annapolis Naval Academy, decked with flags and uniforms, Obama lied that America had gone to Iraq to bring freedom to that country. He announced that the troops were coming home. This was another deception. The head of the army, General George Casey says, with some authority, that America will be in Iraq for up to a decade. Other generals say fifteen years.

Chris Hedges, the very fine author of Empire of Illusion, puts it very well; “President Obama,” he wrote, “does one thing and brand Obama gets you to believe another.” This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they make you feel. And so you are kept in a perpetual state of childishness. He calls this “junk politics”.

But I think the real tragedy is that Obama, the brand, appears to have crippled or absorbed much of the anti-war movement – the peace movement. Out of 256 Democrats in Congress; 30, just 30, are willing to stand up against Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s war party. On June the 16th they voted for 106 billion dollars for more war.

The “Out of Iraq” caucus is out of action. Its member can’t even come up with a form of words of why they are silent. On March the 21st, a demonstration at the Pentagon by the once mighty United for Peace and Justice drew only a few thousand. The out-going president of UFPJ, Lesley Kagen, says her people aren’t turning up because, “It’s enough for many of them that Obama has a plan to end the war and that things are moving in the right direction.” And where is the mighty Move On, these days? Where is its campaign against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And what, exactly, was said when Move On’s executive director, Jason Ruben, met Barack Obama at the White House in February?

Yes, a lot of good people mobilized for Obama. But what did they demand of him? Working to elect the Democratic presidential candidate may seem like activism, but it isn’t. Activism doesn’t give up. Activism doesn’t fall silent. Activism doesn’t rely on the opiate of hope. Woody Allen once said, “I felt a lot better when I gave up hope.” Real activism has little time for identity politics which like exceptionalism, can be fake. These are distractions that confuse and sucker good people. And not only in the United States, I can assure you.

I write for the Italian socialist newspaper, Il Manifesto, or rather I used to write for it. In February I sent the editor an article which raised questions about Obama as a progressive force. The article was rejected. Why, I asked? “For the moment,” wrote the editor, “we prefer to maintain a more positive approach to the novelty presented by Obama. We will take on specific issues, but we would not like to say that he will make no difference.” In other words, an American president drafted to promote the most rapacious system in history, is ordained and depoliticized by important sections of the left. It’s a remarkable situation. Remarkable, because those on the, so called, Radical Left have never been more aware, more conscious of the inequities of power. The Green Movement, for example, has raised the consciousness of millions, so that almost every child knows something about global warming. And yet, there seems to be a resistance, within the Green Movement, to the notion of power as a military force, a military project. And perhaps similar observations can also be made about sections of the Feminist Movement and the Gay Movement and certainly the Union Movement.

One of my favorite quotations is from Milan Kundera,

“The struggle of people against power is [the] struggle of memory against forgetting.”

We should never forget that the primary goal of great power is to distract and limit our natural desire for social justice and equity and real democracy.

Long ago Edward Bernays’ invisible government of propaganda elevated big business from its unpopular status as a kind of mafia to that of a patriotic driving force. The “American way of life” began as an advertising slogan. The modern image of Santa Claus was an invention of Coca Cola.

Today we are presented with an extraordinary opportunity. Thanks to the crash of Wall Street and the revelation, for many ordinary people, that the free market has nothing to do with freedom. The opportunity, within our grasp, is to recognize that something is stirring in America that is unfamiliar, perhaps, to many of us on the left, but is related to a great popular movement that’s growing all over the world. Look down at Latin America, less than twenty years ago there was the usual despair, the usual divisions of poverty and freedom, the usual thugs in uniforms running unspeakable regimes. Today for the first time perhaps in 500 years there’s a people’s movement based on the revival of indigenous cultures and language, a genuine populism. The recent amazing achievements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay represent a struggle for community and political rights that is truly historic, with implications for all of us. The successes in Latin America are expressed perversely in the recent overthrow of the government of Honduras, because the smaller the country, the greater is the threat of a good example that the disease of emancipation will spread.

Indeed, right across the world social movements and grass roots organization have emerged to fight free market dogma. They’ve educated governments in the south that food for export is a problem, rather than a solution to global poverty. They’ve politicized ordinary people to stand up for their rights, as in the Philippines and South Africa. Look at the remarkable boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign, BDS, for short, aimed at Israel that’s sweeping the world. Israeli ships have been turned away from South Africa and Western Australia. A French company has been forced to abandon plans to build a railway connecting Jerusalem with illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli sporting bodies find themselves isolated. Universities in the United Kingdom have begun to sever ties with Israel. This is how apartheid South Africa was defeated. And this is how the great wind of the 1960s began to blow. And this is how every gain has been won: the end of slavery, universal suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, environmental protection, the list goes on and on.

And that brings us back, here, to the United States, because I believe something is stirring in this country. Are we aware, that in the last eight months millions of angry e-mails, sent by ordinary Americans, have flooded Washington. And I mean millions. People are outright outraged that their lives are attacked; they bear no resemblance to the passive mass presented by the media. Look at the polls; more than 2/3 of Americans say the government should care for those who cannot care for themselves, sixty-four percent would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone, sixty percent are favorable towards Unions, seventy percent want nuclear disarmament, seventy-two percent want the US completely out of Iraq and so on and so on. But where is much of the left? Where is the social justice movement? Where is the peace movement? Where is the civil rights movement? Ordinary Americans, for too long, have been misrepresented by stereotypes that are contemptuous. James Madison referred to his compatriots in the public as ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. And this contempt is probably as strong today, among the elite, as it was back then. That’s why the progressive attitudes of the public are seldom reported in the media, because they’re not ignorant, they’re subversive, they’re informed and they’re even anti-American. I once asked a friend, the great American war correspondent and humanitarian, Martha Gellhorn, to explain the term “anti-American” to me. “I’ll tell you what anti-American is,” she said in her forceful way, “its what governments and their vested interests call those who honor America by objecting to war and the theft of resources and believing in all of humanity. There are millions of these anti-Americans in the United States, they are ordinary people who belong to no elite and who judge their government in moral terms though they would call it common decency. They are not vain; they are the people with a waitful conscience, the best of America’s citizens. Sure, they disappear from view now and then, but they are like seeds beneath the snow. I would say they are truly exceptional.” Truly exceptional, I like that.

My own guess is that a populism is growing, once again in America evoking a powerful force beneath the surface which has a proud history. From such authentic grass roots Americanism came women suffrage, the eight hour day, graduated income tax, public ownership of railways and communications, the breaking of the power of corporate lobbyists and much more. In other words, real democracy. The American populists were far from perfect, but they often spoke for ordinary people and they were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. That was long ago, but how familiar it sounds. My guess is that something is coming again. The signs are there. Noam Chomsky is right when he says that, “Mere sparks can ignite a popular movement that may seem dormant.” No one predicted 1968, no one predicted the fall of apartheid, or the Berlin Wall, or the civil rights movement, or the great Latino rising of a few years ago.

I suggest that we take Woody Allen’s advice and give up on hope and listen, instead, to voices from below. What Obama and the bankers and the generals and the IMF and the CIA and CNN and BBC fear, is ordinary people coming together and acting together. It’s a fear as old as democracy, a fear that suddenly people convert their anger to action as they’ve done so often throughout history.

“At a time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Thank you.

Greens and the energy companies

Everybody says they’re for helping out the environment these days, and yet nobody seems to be for protecting the environment that much. After all, who is going to say they are for dumping a pile of personal refuse into the middle of the city park, so to speak?

The most prolific talkers about the need to save the environment are the supporters of the world wide Green Party Movement. This political movement was formed because neither the Marxists nor the capitalists of the world seemed to take the issue seriously enough. Still, today the real issue is, does the Green Movement itself take saving the environment all that seriously? Unfortunately I think that the answer is really… NO, it does not. Why is that conclusion warranted?

Let’s take a look at the energy companies and the Green Movement, for example, and what do all the Green supporters always seem to advocate? They basically seem to advocate nothing. They usually talk about finding new non-polluting energy sources and turning to that as replacement for oil, coal, and nuclear. They advocate that individuals use less energy personally. They advocate less personal consumerism, but they don’t advocate much any real change in the structure of who runs the energy businesses, which is in private hands.
Is that really advocating for protecting the environment in a serious manner?

These energy companies are monstrous in size and are the major multi-nationals in the world. Can their structure just be allowed to stay as it is now, and the earth can be protected by that? Are these energy companies in private hands going to respond to reason and turn to ‘clean’ fuels in lesser amounts? We have to keep in mind that the rest of the multi-nationals demand humongous amounts of energy to be supplied to them for production, transportation, and sales.

Demanding that individuals reduce personal consumption while humongous multi-nationals should merely remain organized as they are is not a serious plan to combat ecological disintegration. Where is the Green Movement’s call to take these companies out of private hands and control their management so that profit making is not their single orientation? Have we missed something here, because allowing private ownership of multi-national energy corporations is not going to conserve Earth?

The Greens have to do what many countries have had to do in the past to be a movement that can seriously change the world. Many countries when confronted by huge multi-nationals that wanted to merely loot national resources and make a profit off that, nationalized these companies. They took them over and took back some of the loot taken into private hands by the super rich. It was necessary to do so, just as it is still necessary to do this with today’s humongous energy conglomerates. In short, the Green Movement must stop just making demands that individual peons change their consumer habits, and demand that energy multi-nationals be nationalized.

The Green Movement, to save Earth’s ecology, has to change from being a group of nice individuals talking intellectually about good things, and become a Movement that has serious demands that can actually effect serious change if implemented. Nationalize the energy multi-nationals now!

Think that costs too much in the long run? Then think some about how these companies have directed the spending of $2 1/2 trillion dollars PLUS into occupying Iraq and Afghanistan? Save some money and help save the planet from non-sustainable production directed by private owners looting Earth for private profit.