After the last Greek elections rejected austerity and caused a global uproar, early polling indicates that the next Greek elections — scheduled for June 17 — will do the same, albeit with more fury.

Greece’s situation is not an isolated event, but a bellwether for the industrial world and beyond. The fallout from the 2008 global crisis hasn’t reached bottom yet, and the depths will be dug deeper as the Euro crisis spreads — political crisis will create economic crisis and vice versa, as periods of calm and stability are replaced by international turmoil and panic.

The media and politicians have portrayed the Greeks as indolent and stupid, refusing to swallow the economic medicine needed for a healthy recovery. But the austerity medicine of the bankers — slashing and privatizing the public sector, cutting wages and benefits, mass layoffs, etc. — is a cure that threatens to kill.

What will happen in Greece? Its future was hinted at in the last elections.  The centrist parties were devastated by the reality of economic extremes; the “middle ground” simply fell out from under them, since society had been torn asunder by the inequality of the very rich versus everybody else.

In consequence, the radical left party SYRIZA is polled to come in first in the next elections, based on its firm stance against austerity and its uncompromising attitude against the bankers of Greece and beyond. The corporate politicians wanted SYRIZA to take part in a “unity government” that would magically rebuild the country’s lost middle ground and continue the pro-banker austerity policies.

But unity in an economically polarized country like Greece is impossible, especially when the continued existence of the bankers and wealthy rests on the continued suffering of everybody else.  

Since unity failed during the last elections, Greek “technocrats” are now overseeing the government until the next elections. What is a technocrat? Someone who supposedly lacks any class bias; the professional strata of professors, lawyers, or doctors that attempt to sit astride an uneven society perfectly balanced, blind to special interests, while keeping their sights set on the “national interest.” But the Greek technocrats are continuing the wealthy’s austerity program, exposing their fake objectivity.

Europe has a long history of unity governments, technocratic governments, and “national salvation governments” (a fancy, more alarmist term for a unity government). In every case the status quo attempts to consolidate itself yet again, trying to muddle through the crisis by putting forth new politicians that have yet to expose themselves as corporate puppets.

What will SYRIZA do if it places first in the next election? A left government could be created — only if the Greek Communist Party agrees — with a plan to get Greece’s working people out of its current abyss.

But the Greek bankers and EU bank-bought politicians will keep a gun to the head of a left government, striving to either tame or crush it.  Threats will be made to withdraw European bailout funds if an anti-austerity path is taken; the wealthy who invest in Greek debt will run for a safe haven (those who haven’t already).

Therefore, the Greek lefts must go “all out;” drastic action is needed. The Greek banks should be nationalized, which SYRIZA has already promised to do; the wealth of the rich must be redistributed through progressive taxation and, where necessary, confiscated (such “extreme” measures are necessary when there is no wealth to be found elsewhere).

These extreme solutions are the only answers to the extremity of austerity. Most importantly, if the Greeks took drastic action against the corporate class, it would set an example for the world to follow. People everywhere would be inspired to fix the crisis on the backs of the wealthy versus working people.

If a left government fails to take drastic action or submits to the bankers, its popularity will plummet, and the right wing will be empowered by using the demagoguery of anti-immigration rhetoric. The Greek Golden Dawn Party (neo-Nazi) used this tactic effectively in the last election to propel itself into parliament for the first time, though it is greatly outnumbered by the forces on the left at this time.

The balance of power lies on the side of the left in Greece: the working class has been radicalized and will not submit; mass demonstrations and general strikes have become common place. But power can fluctuate quickly in times of crisis. Unless the left takes drastic action in Greece, a long period of political instability is likely, with the left and right taking turns at power, attempting to solve the country’s economic and political problems by different methods that favor different social classes. The right wing will seek to “tame” the trade unions and implement austerity, the workers will seek to tame the bankers and the corporations and tax their wealth.

But in a polarized, crisis-plagued country like Greece, a showdown is inevitable. Stability can only be found when one class is forced to submit to the other, since there now exist two powers in the country —  corporate power and people power.

It’s possible that, after a long period of instability that weakens the left, the right wing will attempt to impose “stability” through dictatorship, for the “national interest.” But the army is too weak at this time and the workers too strong; a premature military move would likely spark an even harsher response from the workers.

Greek austerity has accelerated the Greek economic crisis, but austerity is a global problem. It is the bank and corporate answer to an economic crisis which resulted from their passing their private debts onto the public purse, while pushing down wages low enough for these same corporations and banks to regain growth through “profitability.”

The global crisis is structural in nature — the industrial world has huge debt with little or no growth. The rich insist growth (profits) must be made on the backs of the workers, who are being made to work harder for lower wages, fewer benefits, and fewer social programs.

Therefore, all over the world the media reports that worker’s wages are too high, their benefits too lush; social programs are suddenly too expensive and must be slashed alongside education, transportation, and other essentials of a civilized society. Unions and immigrants are made to be enemies of the public. Yet more and more working people are coming to the realization that the blame for the crisis must be placed on those who caused it — the banks and corporations — and they must be made to pay for it.

About the author: Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist and writer for Workers Action.

Societal change usually—but not always—results from decision-making by individuals, with some individuals having more impact than others, of course. At times societal change occurs in response to conscious plans for change. More commonly, however, societal change occurs as an unintended consequence of planned—or, perhaps even more often—unplanned changes. And, of course, the societal changes that occur can be of either a positive or a negative nature, so far as the “general welfare” is concerned.

The term “drift” might be applied to societal change of an unplanned nature; and although columnist (for Truthdig) Chris Hedges does not use that term in discussing recent changes in our society, the changes that he describes would seem to fit that label. Specifically, however, Hedges refers to our society as having been “colonized”—by corporations. That is, just as in the past powerful countries have colonized (i.e., invaded and then exploited) weaker countries for the former’s advantage, so in recent years have corporations in this country been “colonizing” those of us in the “99%.”

The “colonizing” corporate entities “have no loyalty to the nation and indeed in the language of traditional patriotism are traitors [!!].” What their colonizing involves, for the 99% is:

• They steal our resources.
• They keep us politically passive.
• They enrich themselves at our expense.

They are enabled to do the above by virtue of the facts that:

• They deny us job security.
• They ensure that incomes “are reduced to subsistence level,” and thereby plunge us into a situation of desperation.
• They work at dismantling mass movements, such as labor unions.
• They degrade the school system “so only the elites have access to superior education.”
• “Laws are written to legalize corporate plunder and abuse, as well as criminalize dissent.”
• The “ensuing fear and instability—keenly felt this past weekend by the more than 200,000 Americans who lost their unemployment benefits—ensure political passivity by diverting all personal energy toward survival. It is an old, old game.”

Yes, it is an “old game,” but for those of us who grew up believing that America held some sort of promise for us, recent trends have been a bitter pill to swallow.

Hedges, however, sees two recent trends as having promise for “a better tomorrow.” One is the Occupy movement, which “expresses the widespread disgust with the elites, and the deep desire for justice and fairness . . . .” He asserts that the “Occupy movement will change and mutate, but it will not go away. It may appear to make little headway, but this is less because of the movement’s ineffectiveness and more because decayed systems of power have an amazing ability to perpetuate themselves through habit, routine[,] and inertia.” He adds, perceptively: “The press and organs of communication, along with the anointed experts and academics, tied by money and ideology to the elites, are useless in dissecting what is happening within these movements. They view reality through the lens of their corporate sponsors. They have no idea what is happening.”

A second trend that gives Hedges some measure of optimism is the “fact” (per him) that “our corporate regime is dying.” Signs that this is the case, according to Hedges, include the following:

• Members of the elite are becoming demoralized. More and more of them are coming to “understand that the system that enriches and empowers them is corrupt and decayed.”
• As a consequence, they “become cynical. They do not govern effectively. They retreat into hedonism. They no longer believe their own rhetoric.”
• “They devote their energies to stealing and exploiting as much, as fast, as possible. They pillage their own institutions, as we have seen with the newly disclosed loss of $2 billion within JPMorgan Chase, the meltdown of Chesapeake Energy Corp. [,] or the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers.”
• “The elites become cannibals. They consume each other.”
• “A dying ruling class, in short, no longer acts to preserve its own longevity.”
• Loss of faith on the part of the elite “means that when it comes time to use force, the elites employ it haphazardly and inefficiently, in large part because they are unsure of the loyalty of the foot soldier on the streets charged with carrying out repression.”

As one who has had varied experiences and has traveled widely, Chris Hedges has had an opportunity to witness societal change elsewhere up close, and that experience, in conjunction with his reading of, e.g., Robert E. Gamer’s The Developing Nations (1982) has led him to conclude, first, that the “most effective revolutions, including the Russian Revolution, have been largely nonviolent.” (In stating this he went on to note that “Peter Kropotkin[,] during the Russian Revolution[,] condemned the radical terrorists, asserting that they only demoralized and frightened away the movement’s followers[,] and discredited authentic anarchism.”) (By the way, Kropotkin has long been one of my heroes!)

Second, Hedges has come to conclude that the “danger the corporate state faces does not come from the poor. The poor . . . do not mount revolutions, although they join them and often become cannon fodder.” The element in the population that, rather, represents the most serious threat to the elite is déclassé intellectuals, “those educated middle-class men and women who are barred by a calcified system from advancement. Artists without studios or theaters, teachers without classrooms, lawyers without clients, doctors without patients[,] and journalists without newspapers descend economically. They become, as they mingle with the underclass, a bridge between the worlds of the elite and the oppressed. And they are the dynamite that triggers revolt.” 

Hedges’s key argument here (relative to the second point) is that “What fosters revolution is not misery, but the gap between what people expect from their lives and what is offered. This is especially acute among the educated and the talented. They feel, with much justification, that they have been denied what they deserve. They set out to rectify this injustice. And the longer the injustice festers, the more radical they become.”

The implication here, of course, is that déclassé intellectuals in the United States will, at some point (soon?), become so disgusted with the Existing Order and their (“inferior”) place in that Order that they will revolt—precipitate a revolution in this country, and, he hopes, one that is peaceful. This suggests, for me, two questions, however:

• Is a “revolution,” as Hedges conceives it (which, though, is not very clear!) likely?
• If it is not likely, does this mean that we have no reason to be optimistic?

I stated at the beginning that much societal change occurs as a byproduct of decisions that have some other intent. Let me now supply an example of such change—change that is likely for the future, rather than change that has occurred—and argue that it is this that should “occupy” our minds rather than the possibility of, and hope for, “revolution”:

• Various developments (which I will not elaborate on here) have occurred during the past few centuries that have resulted in the increased use of fossil fuels.
• Related developments have resulted in a vast increase in the world’s population—which currently stands at about 7 billion.
• The burning of fossil fuels results in “greenhouse” gases being emitted into the atmosphere.
• Such gases “trap” the long-wave heat energy that then emanates from earth.
• The result of that is what was formerly called “global warming,” and is now (by some of us, at any rate!) called Trendular Atmospheric Depatternization. or TAD.
• Within the next 50 years TAD may very well result in the premature deaths of 90% of the world’s current population. (See this essay by Bill Henderson, in which he refers to British scientist Kevin Anderson, an advisor to the British government on climate matters.)
• As that culling occurs, a point will be reached when all societies—including ours, most certainly!—will begin to disintegrate, and eventually collapse.

What this latter (very strong) possibility suggests is that the déclassé intellectuals in our midst (is Hedges one of them?!) should first recognize this possibility, and then also recognize that it is too late to halt TAD, so that the only choice that we humans have at present is to attempt to adapt, as best we can, to the changes that will inevitably occur as TAD advances.

I’m sure that a number of good ideas currently exist, and will soon be created, as to how to proceed, from an adaptational standpoint. However, only two options occur to me at present, both of which involve self-sufficiency (given that as our society breaks down, if one is not able to provide for one’s own basic needs, one will be doomed—as the disruptions that occur in our economy will become so severe that one will “be on one’s own”):

• Homesteading, as an individual or family (in which case the appropriate terms would be “self-sufficiency” and “family-sufficiency”).
• Joining with others to create an eco-community at a location safe from TAD (insofar as one can plan on the “progress” of TAD), and safe from the hoards of people who have not planned on TAD’s occurrence, and, in desperation, are wandering around looking for food. (In this case “community-sufficiency” would be the appropriate term.)

I will not hazard a guess as to how many déclassé intellectuals live in the United States at present, but it is such individuals who are best “equipped” to recognize the threat posed by TAD, and then act appropriately. My hope is that they will do so! And ASAP!

If such individuals begin—and soon—to realize that there are more important things for them to do than participate in the Occupy movement—namely, that what’s important for them to do is to begin building a New Society within the framework of the Existing Order—their efforts will not—they must realize in advance—prevent a terrible loss of human life, as TAD “progresses.” Their efforts likely will, however, result in a significant saving of human life, and that’s what will make their efforts worthwhile.

About the author: Al Thompson works (data management) for an Engineering (Avionics) firm in Milwaukee. Click here to mail him.

Israel’s tireless efforts to conceal the historical events leading to its creation.

Be’er-Sheva, Israel – I first heard about the Nakba in the late 1980s, while I was an undergraduate student of philosophy at Hebrew University. This, I believe, is a revealing fact, particularly since, as a teenager, I was a member of Peace Now and was raised in a liberal home. I grew up in the southern city of Be’er-Sheva, which is just a few kilometres from several unrecognised Bedouin villages that, today, are home to thousands of residents who were displaced in 1948. I now know that the vast majority of the Negev’s Bedouin population was not as lucky, and that, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, most Bedouin either fled or were expelled from their ancestral lands to Jordan or Gaza.

How is it possible that a left-leaning Israeli teenager who was living in the Negev during the early 1980s (I graduated from high-school in 1983) had never heard the word “Nakba”?

How, in other words, is collective amnesia engendered?

There are many explanations of how master narratives are created and how they suppress and marginalise competing historical accounts. In addition to the work carried out by state institutions and apparata, this careful erasure also demands the ongoing mobilisation of scholars, novelists and artists – as well as other producers of popular culture.

When I was growing up, the history depicted in Israeli high-school textbooks, as well as the historical narrative promulgated by the mass media (there was only one television channel in Israel at the time, which was government run), was validated by famous novelists and public intellectuals. According to a PhD thesis written by Alon Gan from Tel Aviv University, Amos Oz, for example, interviewed soldiers after the 1967 war and used his editorial prerogative to excise descriptions of abuse in order to produce an image of the moral Israeli combatant.

Thinking back to the days when I was involved in Peace Now, I now realise that, even for most Israeli doves at the time, a conflicted history only emerged post-1967 – with the occupation of the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Accordingly, the solution offered by Peace Now addressed the wrongs created in 1967, but had nothing to say about 1948. Indeed, I do not recall any reference to the Palestinian refugees in their publications. The seamless way in which the state had managed to completely suture the happenings of 1948, even among the Israeli peace camp, was indeed remarkable.

To be sure, the Nakba existed in the landscape. There are hundreds of ruined Palestinian villages throughout Israel, many of which are still surrounded by the sabra cactus. The Nakba also emerged in a handful of literary works. S Yizhar’s novella Khirbet Khizeh re counts, for instance, how a group of Israeli soldiers laid siege to a Palestinian village and how they meticulously followed their “operation orders” by clearing the area of “hostile forces”. The unnamed narrator details how they “assemble the inhabitants of the area … load them onto transports, and convey them across [the] lines”, and, finally, they “blow up the stone houses, and burn the huts”. Published a few months after the 1948 war, the novella aroused a public debate, but for some reason neither the novella nor the ruins of villages across the countryside managed to register among the Jewish Israeli population.

Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images – POOL

Despite the Nakba’s immediacy, many tactics have been successfully deployed to hide its traces. Often critics mention in this context Israel’s ongoing scheme of planting forests on ruined Palestinian villages, but in my view the severe segregation characterising Israeli society has a much more profound impact. The actual geographical distance separating me from Bedouin youth my age was negligible, but the social spaces we occupied were worlds apart. The segregation was so intense that I never actually met, needless to say, played with, Bedouin children. I accordingly did not have any opportunity to hear their stories.

After all, history often emerges from quotidian details, like where one’s grandparents came from. Mine emigrated to Mandate Palestine from Russia and Poland and I went to visit them at their kibbutz on most school vacations. Tragically, Jewish and Bedouin youth never had the occasion to share such information with each other.

Palestinian Rights

The Nakba, both as a word and as a historical phenomenon, began to surface among Jews in Israel – and indeed in the international arena – following a series of publications by the “new historians”, whose writings spurred ferocious debates about Israel’s role in creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Perhaps the most influential of these was Benny Morris’ The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem , which appeared in 1987 – almost four decades after Yizhar’s novella.

Other historians such as Ilan Pappe, sociologists such as Baruch Kimmerling and geographers such as Oren Yiftachel took part in this debate, and, despite harsh attacks (often of a personal nature), they began to disrupt Israel’s master narrative – which, until then, had placed all of the blame on Arab leaders. These Israeli academics were following in the footsteps of Palestinian intellectuals such as Walid Khalidi, Sami Hadawi, Ghassan Kanafani and Lebanon’s Elias Khoury. But, because the claims were being made by Israeli Jews, their impact in Israel and abroad was much greater.

At around the same time, the first intifada erupted (December 1987). Images of brutal repression of nonviolent resistance prompted a discussion of Palestinian human and national rights in Israeli society. Within a period of four years (1988-1991), numerous Israeli NGOs were established in order to help protect different Palestinian rights. The Jewish Israeli rights practitioners then had the occasion to meet thousands of Palestinians who had suffered abuse at the hands of the Israeli military; they heard their stories about the present, but from these stories, alternative narratives of the past also emerged. In Gaza, after all, 75 per cent of the residents are refugees from the 1948 war.

During the Oslo years, new textbooks, which discussed the Palestinian refugee problem and mentioned, even if in passing, Israel’s role in its creation, began to appear. In 2002, a group of Israelis created Zochrot (remembering), whose goal was to introduce the Palestinian Nakba to the Israeli-Jewish public, to express the Nakba in Hebrew, and to create a place for the Nakba in the intellectual environment. As one of its founders explained: “This is in order to promote an alternative memory to the hegemonic Zionist memory. The Nakba is the disaster of the Palestinian people: the destruction of the villages and cities, the killing, the expulsion, the erasure of Palestinian culture. But the Nakba, I believe, is also our story, the story of the Jews who live in Israel, who enjoy the privileges of being the ‘winners’.”

These developments have led to a profound change in awareness among the Jewish Israeli public, so that, over the years more and more Israeli Jews have become familiar with the word “Nakba” and the historical events which it denotes. I see the difference among my students today. When I used to say the word “Nakba” in class in the late 1990s, hardly anyone knew what I was talking about; however, if I were to say “Nakba” today, there is hardly a student who would not know what I was referring to. This, it is important to emphasise, does not reflect a change in the views of Israelis towards the conflict, but the understanding of its historical origins is, nonetheless, less naive.

Nakba Backlash

It is precisely within this context that one should understand the state’s decision to reassert itself in an attempt to silence, once again, all talk of the Nakba. One strategy it adopted was the passing of the Nakba law, which was approved by the Knesset in March 2011. The law is actually an amendment to the Budget Foundation Law, and states that the minister of finance is entitled to reduce funds to any public institution, such as a school or university, if it commemorates “Independence Day or the day of the establishment of the state as a day of mourning… “

The legislation process itself was covered by the media, provoking a lively discussion, which in effect rendered the Nakba visible to a much wider audience than ever before. Furthermore, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Adalah (The Legal Center for the Arab Minority in Israel) immediately filed a petition with the supreme court, arguing that the new law constituted a grave violation of the freedom of speech and was part of “a political persecution campaign that aims to de-legitimise an entire population of Israel’s citizenry”.

The two rights groups went on to claim that the commemoration of Nakba Day in no way denies the existence of the state of Israel, as the language of the bill attempts to suggest. Moreover, according to these organisations, the bill blatantly violates the rights of a minority to preserve its history and culture as well as to determine the stories it wants to tell about itself. They further argued that the bill seeks to single out and mark Israel’s Arab citizens as dangerous and disloyal to the state, in that they seek to express their own narrative and interpretation of historical events (Independence Day/Nakba Day), a narrative that is frowned upon by certain political groups in the country.

This is a clear example of a “tyranny of the majority”, where the political majority would violate the basic rights of the minority – in this case their freedom of speech – and consequently also their cultural freedom and freedom to interpret history in ways that offend the majority.

On January 5, 2012, the Supreme Court published its ruling, rejecting the appeal, and upholding the Nakba Law. President Dorit Beinisch and Justices Eliezer Rivlin and Miriam Naor concluded: “The declarative level of the law does indeed raise difficult and complex questions. However, from the outset, the constitutionality of the law depends largely upon the interpretation given to the law’s directives.” In other words, the court refrained from judging the constitutionality of the law before it was implemented in a concrete case.

In this way, as Dan Yakir from the Association for Civil Rights stated: “The court completely ignored the claims regarding the chilling effect of this law, which forces state-supported entities to risk a significant reduction in their budgets before the law will be considered for judicial review. In this, it limits free speech.” Yakir’s point was that the law harms both the freedom of expression and the civil rights of Arab citizens, even before its implementation, because the law’s formulation is so broad and vague, many institutions have already begun to censor themselves so as not to risk incurring penalties.

Truth Goes Both Ways

Despite the legal setback with respect to the Nakba Law, as well as the well-orchestrated attack against organisations like Zochrot, the Israeli government’s concerted effort to reinitiate national amnesia is futile. As the great Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt once put it, the fact that Leon Trotsky does not appear in Soviet Russian history books does not mean that he did not exist. “The trouble with lying and deceiving,” Arendt explains, “is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide. In this sense, truth, even if it does not prevail in public, possesses an ineradicable primacy over all falsehoods.”

The Nakba is a truth, and while the efforts to expose the unfolding historical events have recently experienced a fierce legal assault, its primacy over falsehoods guarantees that it will prevail. Jewish Israeli society needs to confront the Nakba for what it was, as well as its ongoing ramifications, whether in the refugee camps across the Levant or in the hills of south Hebron, where Palestinians are under constant threat of expulsion; we need to recognise that the Palestinians have suffered – and still suffer – and that they have been stripped of basic rights by successive Israeli governments for more than half a century. This recognition is the condition of possibility for a better future.

But if there is any hope for this region, the recognition must be reciprocal. The Palestinians, who have no doubt been wronged, must concede, as the late Edward Said urged them to do, that two wrongs do not make a right. Only once there is mutual recognition of the two historical narratives will an opportunity for reconciliation truly emerge.

About the author: Neve Gordon is the author of ‘Israel’s Occupation’. Click here to visit his website. 

(Al Jazeera News Service)

“If you don’t want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed, or tortured then you shouldn’t condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not.”

– Moby

There I was, walking along 30th Ave. in Astoria, Queens. Just a few steps in front of me, two men and a little girl were strolling at a casual pace. The men, in their late 20s, were deep in conversation but one was clearly keeping an eye on the girl. She was no more than five-years-old but had a precocious and confident air that you could detect in a single glance.

As we all passed one of the many Italian delis that dot the Astoria landscape, the young gal looked to her left and then turned to one of the men.

“Dad,” she said, giggling uncontrollably. “The sign on that store said ‘We carry frozen snails.’”

With comic timing that would make any Vaudevillian drool, he replied: “I bet their hands are cold.” (insert rimshot here) And dig this: his daughter got the pun. She was laughing her little head off the rest of the way down the block.

What she didn’t get — what so few of us get — is how the tragic realities of the standard American diet are rendered invisible.

As I continued my way down 30th Ave., I saw a butcher standing in front of his shop — chatting amiably with passersby — his white frock stained deep red with blood.

He was casually standing there — as he does every day — drenched in the blood of a murdered creature but essentially nobody chose to notice the crimson splatter. Those that did notice, well, they didn’t even flinch.

Behind the butcher, sheep carcasses hung from large hooks in the window… their bulging lifeless eyes seemed to stare accusingly at the butcher’s back. He didn’t appear to notice. Essentially nobody noticed and those that did, well, they didn’t even flinch.

The next block brought me in contact with a fish store. Wet cardboard boxes filled with marine corpses piled in front… the street reeking of death. Beyond the stench, essentially nobody noticed and those that did, well, they didn’t even flinch.

Looking into the fish store window, I saw a tiny aquarium tank. At least a dozen doomed lobsters were piled atop one another… their claws taped shut. Essentially nobody noticed and those that did, well, they didn’t even flinch.

What happens when someone points all this out, refuses to participate, and urges others to do the same? You can be damn fuckin’ sure plenty of folks will notice and, yeah… the flinching will begin in earnest.

Mic Check: We need more flinching, we need less denial, and we must make holistic connections.

“One thing to remember is to talk to the animals. If you do, they will talk back to you. But if you don’t talk to the animals, they won’t talk back to you, then you won’t understand, and when you don’t understand you will fear and when you fear you will destroy the animals, and if you destroy the animals, you will destroy yourself.”

– Chief Dan George

The correlation between animal rights and the Occupy movement is clear. The corporate powers-that-be manipulate and twist our minds in the name of profit and they’re damn sure not gonna let animal abuse get in their avaricious way.

Mic Check: If the new wave of occupants and the old guard of animal rights activists join hands, well… the 99% becomes that much more unstoppable.

As I’ve said over and over, the system being challenged by OWS is built, in a major way, on the exploitation of non-human animals and the eco-system. It’s all connected within a culture constructed on the premise of unlimited growth and it must all remain connected within a movement aiming for holistic justice.

If you’re already working to dismantle corporate power, expand freedoms, and create a safer, more sane culture, you already have plenty in common with animal rights activists.

Why not take things even further and recognize that the mighty 99% also includes non-human animals — and the entire ecosystem itself?

Mic Check: If you’re in the New York City area, join us for an afternoon of solidarity at the Veggie Pride Parade event at Union Square Park on Sun., May 27. I’m the keynote speaker and I will be connecting animal rights activists with occupiers that day.

We are the 99%. Expect us. Join us…

Occupy For All Species

***

Mickey Z. is the author of 11 books, most recently the novel Darker Shade of Green. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, he can be found on an obscure website called Facebook.

© WorldNewsTrust.com — Share and re-post this story. Please include this copyright notice and a link to World News Trust. 

Much of the misconception about “underpopulated” Canada is due to a misunderstanding of its unique geography. Most of Canada is bare, uninhabitable rock, mainly the famous Canadian Shield. Bare rock is never “underpopulated.” So let us consider the following figures. They provide a “thought experiment” that allows us to understand what might be called the “border strip,” the narrow populated southern band which is demographically the most significant part of the country. These figures are given only as approximations, mainly because the “border strip” itself is a rather arbitrarily-defined set of figures.

(Further refinements of the “thought experiment” might include considering such factors as the population outside the border strip, the amount of arable land, and the degree of urbanization of the population.) 

Obviously one can juggle statistics in many ways to “prove” many things, but the concept of the “border strip” is nevertheless worthy of consideration, particularly since those who deplore what they consider Canada’s sad state of “underpopulation” presumably do not intend to deposit their potential new arrivals on bare rock.

To begin…

Canada has an area of 10,000,000 km2 and a population of 35,000,000. The border length is 9,000 km.

But…

Eighty percent of the population lives within 150 km of the border. Eighty percent is 28,000,000.

The “border strip” is 150 km x 9,000 km, i.e. 1,350,000 km2.

So the “border strip” has a population density of 28,000,000/1,350,000 km2, or 21/km2. This would put it in roughly the same range of density as such countries as Uruguay, Sweden, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Kyrgyzstan, and not very far below that of the USA, which is 34/km2.

To conclude…

Canada is therefore ALREADY WELL POPULATED. There is simply no need to continue our mad rush to fill the country. Thanks to our misguided politicians, Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. It also has many economic problems and is unable to provide adequate support for people who already live here. A large increase in population is not a solution. In fact, in a world that now has a total population of over 7 billion, an increase in population is never a solution to anything.

About the author: Peter Goodchild is the author of ‘Survival Skills of the North American Indians’ (Chicago Review Press). Click here to mail him.

On May 1, after a day of May Day activities on the streets and avenues of Manhattan, my wife and I and a troop of other OWS celebrants marched into Zuccotti Park to jubilant exhortations of “welcome home” from a throng of fellow occupiers. The next day, my wife and I boarded a southbound Amtrak train to join family gathered at my dying father’s bedside to bid him farewell.

May in Georgia…In this age of climate chaos, the local flora comes to bloom a full month earlier than in decades past. This season, magnolias and hydrangeas blossomed in early May. Their petals opened to the world as my father’s life is fading. The magnolia petals have grown heavy; his body is shrinking. Soon he will drift from this world…carried by the scent of late spring blossoms.

In our once laboring class neighborhood, McMansions blot out the late spring sun. In the arrogant shadow of these shoddily constructed, bloated emblems of late capitalism, the neighborhood’s remaining 1950′s single level, brick homes seem to recede…fading like memory before the hurtling indifference of passing eras.

In late spring, veils of pollen merge with shrouds of Atlanta traffic exhaust. Timeless nature has awakened as the noxious capitalist certainties underpinning the aberration known as the New South are dying.

Hospice has arrived in the home of my father.

A death vigil has begun, as well, for our culture.

Lost, starving, wailing into a void of paternal abandonment, my father, left on the doorstep of a Baptist church adjacent to an Indian Reservation in rural Missouri, arrived into this keening world. Now, he is refusing to eat and is wailing, once again, into an abyss of helplessness…His bones, eaten by cancer, and his bowels seized up by the side effects of opiates, he is starving himself to death.

He now lies in his bedroom; his sight…set on the undiscovered realm of death. This world denied him succor; now Death offers the embrace that he was denied (and later) refused, as he proceeded through this life in a resentful fury. His wounds cauterized by rage-lit flames.

Now, I must comfort him…as he did me, when I was a child, seized by night terrors…that he both placated and caused.

He whimpers into the air of the small home that he once shook with rage. Now, betrayed by his body, and again orphaned by fate, he will soon leave this world — a place from which he was perpetually estranged. 

I hope the womb of night will bestow a peace upon him that was denied to him by this world. I hope whatever dawn he meets will hold him in an embrace so all encompassing and gentle that he will shed his compulsion to bristle and retreat. I hope he will, at long last, know he was loved.

My father was born on an Indian reservation and abandoned on the doorsteps of a Baptist church in rural Missouri in the early years of the Great Depression. A Jewish mother and Protestant father adopted him. In those days, it was a standard practice of adoption agencies to offer up for adoption children of so-called mixed ancestry to interdenominational couples. Caucasian babies, the conventional wisdom of the time presumed, would carry a stigma for life from being raised in a home headed by such social deviants.

My mother escaped Hitler’s Germany (barely) on a Kindertransport. My wife is from the rural South Carolina Low Country. She’s a flat-lander, a swamp bunny. As for myself, I was born in Birmingham, Alabama, in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. I’m an accidental Hillbilly…The lay of the land endowed me with a hill country perception of existence, yet I appreciate the mode of being evinced in places like Charleston and New Orleans…the humidity slowing down the pace of life…the mind as a gnat flurry.

My blood, as is the case with all of us, is composed of ancient oceans that long to know land and sky. On a personal basis, my atavistic blood is a sea of diverse ethnic consanguinity that meets the shore of a global polis. The waves of this body of water are changeable…sometimes, caressing the shoreline… placid, at ease in the world; sometimes, agitated and enraged by what I witness…becoming a series of antagonistic waves crashing against the insensate rocks of the mindless social circumstances that damaged my father so.

Soon, my father will return to the vast ocean of eternity. I consider it my duty to sing the song of my blood…to compose and give voice to sacred hymns, both of the personal and the collective.

This is my poet’s prayer: Life rose from ancient oceans so that mollusks could gaze upon the evening sky. Likewise, we emerged from the cosmic brine to know physical embrace…made resonate because of its finite nature — the loving limits imposed by Time. Accordingly, the immaterial longs for the caress of the summer breeze and to rage into a winter wind. Spiritus Mundi is dependent on us to cultivate our individual souls…to have our blood sing biographical ballads to audiences gathered in Eternity.

My father’s song is almost at its end.

The endless song continues.

A song of tribute to the life of my father (or, for that matter, any human life) must combine elements of a fight song and a love song. One must love life enough to take a stand in its behalf.

During the Great Depression, my father was (again) left fatherless when his adopted father suffered a debilitating stroke, resulting in a protracted decline that left their small family penniless and homeless. Consequently, my father, along with his nearly incapacitated father and his mother managed to make their way from rural Missouri to Cleveland, Ohio, and then went on to find lodging with members of his mother’s family who had settled in Birmingham, Alabama, where shortly thereafter his father died.

In the Deep South, the dark hue of my father’s Native American skin marked him for abuse by belligerent locals. Although he had been deprived of detailed knowledge of his ancestry, his Comanche blood resisted intimidation. His tormentors wounded him deeply, but they also succeeded in opening deep reservoirs of ancestral rage.

My father harbored an abiding animus to bullies — a trait he bequeathed to me by both blood and circumstance.

Apropos: At the foot of Broadway, on May Day, I stood near a bristling array of NYPD officers who were tasked with the crucial mission of protecting the statue of Wall Street’s iconic “Charging Bull” — where I heard one of the witless, uniformed thugs, through a smirk, opine, “These rich, lazy bums go to college and study women’s studies and the history of Negroes — then come out here in the real world and whine that they can’t get a job…These brats should have thought about what they’re going to do in life when they were in school?”

I turned to face him and averred, “I guess they could follow your example and they could stand here on Wall Street…stroking a billy club…protecting ultra-wealthy criminals and their ill-gotten riches.”

Of course, he responded by calling me a socialist.

Even though that was, most likely, the first accurate statement he posited all day, I replied, “As opposed to following your noble example: choosing to spend your days as a mindless fascist bully?”

His smirk still in place, he spat, “As if you even know what a fascist is!”

I replied, “As a matter of fact, I do, and you, being posed as you are in front of that bull [with its bronze form cast to crouch in a stance of impending aggression; its form, permanently locked in a position of myopic fury] will serve as a perfect backdrop for me to illustrate the situation. Mussolini, who knew a bit about the subject, proclaimed fascism to be the merger of the corporation and the state. Therefore, since it follows that the state pays your salary, and you spend your days protecting the corporate order… that you, to a jackboot, fit the profile of a fascist…Don’t you now?”

At that, his smirk solidified into a mask of belligerent stupid. He slapped his truncheon into his meaty palm, and told me that if I knew what was good for me I better move along.

I told him that he was probably right, due to the fact, I suspect, he could very accurately and with much relish impart to me the true nature of fascism with that nightstick of his.

His lipless, reptilian grin indicated he would be more than happy to take a personal interest in tutoring me on the subject.

“The ghetto that you built for me is the one you’re living in.”

– Bob Dylan, Dead Man, Dead Man

But the fight is not with this individual enforcer of the present, doomed order. The encounter is emblematic of what those who devote themselves to the unfolding struggle are up against: an armed and fortified wall of sneering arrogance — a violent, human torrent of surging ignorance.

For us, the living, breaching Death’s wall, possessed of the intention of changing its implacable order, is, of course, impossible — but challenging the present, calcified order — a death-addicted arrangement, created and maintained by mortal men that has existed well past its given and rightful time — has become imperative.

For my father, the struggle is nearly at its end; for those of us who remain in this breathing world, the struggle has just begun.

About the author: Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. Click here to visit his website.

Who would have thunk it?! It has recently been discovered that certain linguistic innovations have the inherent ability to address some of our problems as humans. All that is required, by us, is to create, and then publicize them. The new terms will then work their magic, in some mysterious way, and somehow address some of our most vexing problems. (Actually, I am being more than a little facetious here—but hope that I have caught your attention!)

What are some examples of these magical terms? Here are a few: “treasure impulse,” “sustainable consumption,” “livelihood chain,” and “elemental accounting”—all of them terms introduced by Saleem Hassan Ali, a Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Vermont. Commenting in detail on the meanings of these new terms is beyond the scope of this essay, but let me briefly comment on “treasure impulse.”

According to Ali, “greed is not bad,” being associated with our “treasure impulse.” This is a seemingly startling point to make about greed, which causes one to ask at least three questions:

• What is the common meaning of “greed”?
• Does Ali’s meaning for the word coincide with this common meaning?
• If not, how does it differ from the common meaning? And related to this: Does that meaning differ so substantially from the common meaning that “greed” should not be the label attached to Ali’s meaning—and that Ali’s doing so should be sanctioned? That Ali’s invention here, rather than being enlightening, is obfuscating.

Here is the common meaning given to “greed”:

Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one’s self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.  It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

As commonly defined, then, “greed” refers to an irrational desire to obtain as much wealth (or status, fame, power) as one can, a drive utterly detached from basic need satisfaction, and with no thought whatsoever of one’s sharing any of that wealth with others (except perhaps family members). One whose behavior is dominated by greed is so self-oriented that s/he pursues wealth using whatever means will be effective—within the law (the greedy individual often, however, using his/her wealth, and thereby influence, to effectuate changes in the law that will ensure that his/her actions are legal!)

What does “greed” mean to Ali? Ali perceives “greed” as part of our (what he calls) “treasure impulse.” Evidently Ali believes that this “impulse” is one that we are all born with, and that this impulse directs us to collect and consume, on the one hand, and to innovate and discover, on the other hand. Ali implies that it would be pointless to apply value judgments to any of these four tendencies, because if a given tendency is “natural,” it follows that that tendency is simply “there,” it is not something that is chosen (i.e., involves free will). Ali also implies that we humans are unable to control our tendency to, e.g., collect, so that our destiny is to attempt (non-cognitively—being, rather, driven to act) to collect as much as we can, to consume as much as we can, etc. How does “greed” enter the picture here? There is no clear answer to that question provided in the source that I am using here (cited above), but to answer the second question that I posed above, I would say “No!”

What Ali seems to saying is that humans have four basic “drives”—to collect, consume, innovate, and discover—and that they have a common thread: All involve doing. The first two involve movement, physical activity, as does the fourth. The third drive, however, is of a different sort in that, although it involves activity, that activity is of a mental sort. Often, though, that mental activity involves ideas for creating new things, or modifying the characteristics of existing things, which ideas, in being implemented, result in the creation/modification of things—which then become associated with the activities of collection, consumption, and discovery.

We have these drives because they are necessary for our survival (their presence in us having been ensured by evolutionary forces); and our innovation activity occurs because of our highly developed brain, with the resulting innovations contributing to our survival.

I realize that I have been attributing ideas to Ali using a rather shaky basis for so doing. Perhaps if I were more familiar with his work (beyond the article by Naazish YarKhan that I have been using) I would have a clearer idea of what he means by “treasure impulse” and “greed.” From YarKhan’s article, however, I have to conclude that:

• The meaning that he gives to “greed” seems to have little in common with the common meaning (quoted above).
• Just as creating the word “unicorn” doesn’t result in actual unicorns appearing on the scene, so creating “treasure impulse” will not result is such an impulse magically arising with us humans.

If Ali is introducing “treasure impulse” to refer to a group of tendencies—namely, to collect, consume, innovate, and discover—he owes us the courtesy of providing us with a rationale for placing these four tendencies in a single group. First, though, he needs to establish the existence of these tendencies (as “drives” with a biological basis). Until he does that, I see no reason to add his “treasure impulse” to the language.

Ali’s colleague at the University of Vermont, Thomas Hudspeth, has used the term “brave thinking” in conjunction with Ali, Ali has been named a “young global leader” by the World Economic Forum, a “green giant” by The Observer Magazine, and among eight “revolutionary minds in the world” by Seed magazine. And a “Google” search on “Saleen Ali” returns about 7, 420, 000 “hits”! No one can doubt, then, that Ali is an important player on the world scene at present. Although Ali was born in Massachusetts, his heritage is Pakistani, and he spent some of his youth in Pakistan. As YarKhan notes about this, Ali credits that experience “with his love of bringing together diverse ideas to produce something new.”

However, I have a reservation about Ali in addition to those mentioned above. Before identifying it, though, let me quote this from YarKhan’s article:

Whenthe un-mandated University of Peace, founded in Costa Rica in 1980, wanted to develop a curriculum called PeaceEducation: Islamic Perspectives,Amr Abdalla, professor and vice rector, came to Ali. “A wide population of Muslims relies to a great extent on their understanding of their religion to guide all aspects of their lives. Wesee no contradiction between Islam and disciplines such as peace, conflict and environment,” says Abdalla.

(Please note here that “un-mandated” should be “UN-mandated”—i.e., mandated by the United Nations. The meanings of these two terms are very different!)

The fact that Amr Abdalla contacted Ali for help in developing his Peace Education: Islamic Perspectives tells me that Ali is not so “Westernized” that he feels that religion should be segregated from public life—and I congratulate him for this, for I share such a belief (as indicated in, e.g., my “NeWFism: A Religion for the Twenty-First Century”). Not that governments should support certain religions, but that those in public life should not feel that they must “forget” their religious beliefs. My only caution here—and I assume that Ali would agree with me on this point—is that those in public office must be careful not to infringe on the religious beliefs/practices of others—a principle which, though, can be difficult to follow as recent history here in the United States (regarding the abortion issue and the Catholic Church) has demonstrated.

As to my major reservation regarding Ali’s ideas, I perceive in him no serious worry about what (used to be called) “global warming” (and is now called TAD!) may do to our species. As Bill Henderson has noted (see the two citations in this), British scientist Kevin Anderson—an advisor to the British government on climate matters—has projected as highly likely a severe culling of the world’s population within the next 50 years. A culling so utterly severe that within that period of time 90% of the world’s people will be dying prematurely!

The Linguistic Solution to Our Problems

As a highly-educated person, Ali must be aware of the fact that scientists such as Anderson, James Lovelock, and James Hansen have, during the past few years, been warning us about this possibility. Given that if that severe culling occurs (as it surely will!), societies will disintegrate, and chaos will erupt throughout the world, one would think that Ali would have given this possibility serious attention. Evidently he hasn’t, however.

This is especially unfortunate given that a person with his stature could play an important role in saving at least some of the world’s population from this calamity.

Addendum

When one is involved in summarizing/critiquing the work of someone whose works one lacks much familiarity, one runs the risk of misrepresenting the person’s ideas. In the case of the present essay about Saleem H. Ali, I have never read anything by him, and have read only one article about him. As a consequence, I risked misinterpretation, but took that risk. My view in limiting my attention to the one source is the judgment that any work—even an essay—should be relatively self-contained, so that one can understand its “message” without needing to consult a number of other works by the author. Of course, in this case the article that I had used as my source was written by someone other than himself, thereby increasing the odds that I would misinterpret him.

I realized this as a potential problem, and therefore sent an email to Prof. Ali, and invited him to comment on my essay prior my to sending it to Brave New World. He sent the following response, and gave me permission to attach it to my essay. I glad that he did, because I think it only fair that he have an opportunity to defend/explain himself.

Prof. Ali did not provide me with a detailed commentary at this point, but seems to have promised to do so later. If he does, I hope that he sends it to this site. You will note that the “interview” that I had used as my sole source is not, according to Ali, “fully representative of my arguments.” He went on to note that his point of view is better expressed in his Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed, and a Sustainable Future book (2009).

I was heartened by Ali’s statements that he is “very concerned about climate change,” and his view that “mitigation is now futile within our political system and we will have to focus far more on adaptation strategies . . . .” I am anxious to know what he has in mind regarding “adaptation strategies,” and will need to contact him in the near future to find out where, specifically, he discusses “adaptation strategies.” I do wish, however, that the “interview” that I had used as my source had made some reference to Prof. Ali’s views on global warming. The fact that such views were not presented assumedly suggests that he was never asked for his views! However, another plausible explanation is that the periodical for which the interview was prepared was not interested in publicizing Prof. Ali’s views on the matter!

Dear Al

Thanks for taking the time to write and respond.

The interview on which you are basing your review is not fully representative of my arguments.

You are welcome to interpret these as you consider appropriate but would suggest you read my book “Treasures of the Earth” [link added by me—ACT I] first.

I am indeed very concerned about climate change — the issue is one of how we respond. In my view mitigation is now futile within our political system and we will have to focus far more on adaptation strategies and for that our “treasure impulse” will be a fruitful way to proceed.

I won’t be able to write a response right away but in due course can address your article.

Kind regards

Saleem

______________________________

Saleem H. Ali, Ph.D.

Professor of Environmental Planning and Asian Studies Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources Director, Institute for Environmental Diplomacy and Security James M. Jeffords Center for Policy Research University of Vermont,

153 S. Prospect St.

Burlington VT 05401, USA

About the author: Al Thompson works (data management) for an Engineering (Avionics) firm in Milwaukee. Click here to mail him.

Straightjacket Eurozone rules trap 17 dissimilar countries. Greece proved most vulnerable. It’s cratering under imposed austerity.

It’s the epicenter of Europe’s deepening economic crisis. Fed up Greeks want change. May 6 parliamentary elections favored anti-austerity candidates.

Coalition talks failed. On June 17, new elections may or may not settle things. Round one runner-up SYRIZA (the Coalition of the Radical Left) campaigned on “tear(ing) up the barbaric accord.”

On Greece’s NET TV, its leader Alexis Tsipras said:

“We are being asked to agree to the destruction of Greek society. SYRIZA won’t betray the Greek people.”

It’s expected to emerge first and gain an automatic extra 50 parliamentary seats. Polls show it’s gaining strength. With or without enough support, forming an anti-austerity coalition looks problematic.

How far an eventual government will go remains to be seen. Policies usually belie campaign rhetoric. Beleaguered Greeks want promises made fulfilled. Getting relief is another matter entirely.

According to Michael Hudson:

Across Europe, “(l)eft-wing parties, socialist parties, labor parties all say that they’re going to preserve the social contract, and as soon as they get into power, they sell out to their financial backers, they double cross labor.”

Preserving Europe and saving banks comes first. People needs don’t matter. Sacrifice demands deep social cuts, unemployment, and poverty. Few have the political will to refuse. So far, no Eurozone country dared.

Expect hard times to get harder unless public rage forces revolutionary change. That’s a bridge not yet crossed.

On May 11, the Financial Times headlined “Greece is falling out of Europe,” saying:

Greeks reject austerity. “You can scarcely blame them for throwing out a corrupt political establishment. It is also indisputable that the economic prescription written by its international creditors is astonishingly harsh.”

Nonetheless, the FT claims:

“Greece is sailing between the Scylla of creditor-imposed depression and the Charybdis of the chaos of unilateral debt repudiation and exit from the euro.”

Breaking up is hard to do. So is major surgery. Healing and recovery take time. It’s done because the alternative is unacceptable. Greece faced that choice long ago. It kicked the can down the road and did nothing. It agreed to impoverish its people to pay bankers.

It delayed, equivocated, sacked an elected prime minister, and replaced him with a Goldman Sachs connected unelected one. Temporary government will serve until elections produce a new one.

Council of State (the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece) head Panagiotis Pikramemos serves as interim premier. President Karolos Papoulias appointed him. Technocrats are in charge until post-election. It’s main task is to prepare for June 17. According to Greece’s constitution, it can’t enact new laws.

Earlier Pikramemos ruled that bailout conditions and IMF mandates don’t violate Greece’s constitution. Austerity remains policy. A SYRIZA-led government may be too weak to change it.

Elections rarely settle things. Whether public rage shifts the balance isn’t known. It’s close to exploding. People don’t want new bums replacing old ones. They won’t likely get what they want.

Likely coalition partners SYRIZA and the Democratic Left (DIMAR), its spinoff, oppose austerity. They also insist Greece must maintain the euro “at all costs.” Tsipras said leaving would be “disastrous.” He’ll “do all (he) can” to prevent it.

To form a new government, he’ll need one or more conservative partners unless SYRIZA’s popularity soars well above its 28% level. DIMAR has around 5%.

Keeping the euro requires following Troika (EU, ECB and IMF) diktats. Otherwise expect Eurozone expulsion. Bailout funds going mostly to bankers end. SYRIZA faces heavy pressure to yield.

Greece Reflects Growing Economic Turmoil

Tsipras wants bailout terms renegotiated. He pledged to cancel “austerity measures and (rebuild Greece) from the ruins left behind by the parties of the cuts.”

No concrete demands were made. Troika leaders won’t renegotiate. A SYRIZA-led government won’t get much choice. In the end, expect business as usual to continue. At most, Troika rules may be modestly softened. It’ll be too little to matter. What’s next is anyone’s guess.

Opinions vary on Greece leaving the euro. Some analysts ask if it’s ready to go it alone? Others say it’s inevitable. Will exiting trigger other departures? Other troubled economies could follow. Ireland, Spain and Portugal are especially vulnerable.

Falling euro currency valuations suggest uncertainty. Even before exiting, Greek banks could collapse. From January 2010 through March 2012, nearly one-third of deposits were withdrawn. In recent days, nearly another $1 billion sought safety. More does daily to avoid devaluation if the drachma’s restored.

Greek bankers told President Papoulias they’re worried about surviving if depositors shift funds abroad. According to economist Yannis Loannides, it’s a “very serious problem.” The only way to stop a bank run is for the ECB to guarantee deposits held by regional lenders to guard against contagion.

In March, commercial and personal deposits in Greek banks totaled 165.4 billion euros. Greece’s government has enough cash for another six weeks. Without help, bankruptcy and default loom. Restructuring is long overdue.

In the 1990s, Argentina swore never to abandon its currency board. In 2001, it yielded under severe pressure. Deep recession and severe pain ensued. Strong growth followed restructuring. Creditors had no choice.

Greece can go the same way. Restructuring will leave it debt free. Exiting euro straightjacket rules means regaining control of its monetary and fiscal policy. Once crisis conditions pass, growth can follow.

Like Argentina, Greece has sovereign rights. It’s high time it reclaimed them. Moreover, it’ll set a long overdue precedent for other troubled Eurozone countries to follow.

Creditors and banksters should eat losses, not ordinary people who had nothing to do with creating them and current crisis conditions. Having things turn out that way faces long odds.

An unwritten contract endows banking giants with an inalienable right to plunder taxpayers for their own self-interest. Elected officials are bribed, bullied and pressured to go along.

Tactics used work. An occasional “flash crash” and mountains of ready campaign crash gain supporters. Unknown under the table amounts sweeten deals and seal them with some on the fence.

More of the same assures harder than ever hard times. Crisis conditions across Europe build. Greece is the canary in the coal mine. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy aren’t far behind.

On May 31, Irish citizens face a choice, or do they? They’ll vote in a national referendum on EU fiscal policy. Many oppose renewing the current treaty. Others favor it. Some aren’t sure either way.

The governing Labour-Fine Gael coalition and opposition Fianna Fail support austerity and banker bailouts. Tactics include intimidating voters to expect economic collapse unless continue.

Finance Minister Michael Noonan said deeper social cuts will follow a no vote. Large investors warn they’ll shift funds elsewhere. At the same time, cuts assure deeper ones and greater crisis conditions.

Unemployment and poverty grow. How much people will take remains to be seen. Parties on both sides and union bosses offer no fundamental change. Instead of repudiating a corrupted system, they support it.

In Ireland and across Europe, ordinary people are alone in the fight for change. Getting it won’t be easy. One referendum up or down barely scratches the greater problem.

Perhaps Greece or another country declaring bankruptcy will send a message too resonant to ignore. Eventually it looms. What can’t go on forever, won’t.

A Final Comment

What’s hitting Europe affects America. Data releases show it. Most recent ones fell below expectations. Household survey employment dropped two consecutive months.

Labor force participation plunged to a 30-year low. Minus Q I mild weather, real GDP stagnated. Nonresidential construction contracted. So did business spending and durable goods orders.

Production is softening. The May Philadelphia Fed May manufacturing index plunged. From April’s +8.5, it dropped to -5.8. Economists expected an increase to 10.0. New orders and hiring expectations also contracted. The March production diffusion index dropped from 62.8 to 44.6. It’s the lowest level since mid-2009.

The Conference Board reported its index of leading economic indicators fell 0.1% in April. Economists expected a gain. Real final sales fell at an annual 1% rate. Real wage-based incomes fell for the past two months as well as four of the last five.

Households on food stamps, receiving disability benefits, and having withdrawn from the labor force are at record highs. Consumer confidence reflects recession, not growth.

Near-zero interest rates punish savers and retirees. Approaching retirement for many reflects uncertain darkness at the end of the tunnel.

A new University of Michigan study found one-fifth of outstanding household credit card balances, student loans, medical bills, and other unsecured debts exceed savings.

The percent of household with no savings or negative net worth approaches 25%. Things aren’t improving. They’re worsening. Growth is nowhere in sight.

Since 2009, Obama’s $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus went largely to corporate favorites and America’s super-rich already with too much. Less than $100 billion targeted infrastructure spending, and much of that hasn’t been spent.

Less than $50 billion went to beleaguered homeowners and other ways to resurrect housing. At the same time, trillions were provided for banker bailouts. Totals are unknown. Official ones top $9 trillion.

Tax cuts for the rich and bailing out banks at the expense of the economy assure protracted hard times. Job creation has been largely moribund. Good ones are are hard to find.

Nothing done since 2008 turned a sick economy into a healthy one. Severe problems remain. They fester. Unemployment and poverty are at Depression levels. Hiring plans are down, not up. Layoffs continue. Government payrolls declined by nearly half a million.

A housing crisis continues. Wages for most workers are flat. Adjusted for inflation, they’re down. Over the past decade, they declined over 10%. In Q IV 2011, federal spending dropped 6.9%. State and local levels fell 2.2%.

They reflect major protracted economic drags. In Q I 2012, manufacturing exports slowed. Q II continues to look weak. In an election year when incumbents need growth to attract votes, a downward trajectory spells trouble. Expect worse results ahead.

Mainstream economists expected US growth to stimulate EU recovery and sustain emerging market strength. Evidence grows Europe is in deep trouble and BRIC countries are heading for hard, not soft, landings.

Decoupling from the global economy doesn’t work. What affects Europe hits America. As they go, so does the world.

Today’s downward trajectory is steepening. Months from now expect worse, and post-election worst of all when bipartisan agreement to slash another $4 trillion in mostly social spending over the next decade kicks in.

How long will growing millions put up with what’s intolerable? How long before they explode? Expect it when they’re broke, out of luck, on their own, and know federal, state and local help won’t come.

Expect it when rent payments can’t be made and families can’t be fed. That’s when push comes to shove. Will it make a difference? Only the fullness of time will tell.

About the author: Stephen Lendman writes on topics of international importance such as war and peace, American imperialism, corporate dominance, political persecutions and other socio-economic and political issues. He is also the author of ‘How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War’ and the co-author (along with J. J. Asongu) of ‘The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance’. A former marketing research analyst, Lendman also hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour (on the Progressive Radio Network, Thursdays at 10:00 AM & Saturdays/Sundays at noon, US Central Time), that features cutting-edge interviews with distinguished guests. Click here to visit his blog.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

– Edward Abbey

“The Occupy movement spontaneously created something that doesn’t really exist in the country: Communities of mutual support, cooperation, open spaces for discussion … people doing things and helping each other.”

– Noam Chomsky

I often wonder what the cops, passersby, media types, etc. are thinking when occupiers break into the joyous song/dance of ah-anti-anti-capitalista.

Here in the Land of the Free™, we are consciously conditioned to worship capitalism (and capitalists) so I’ll bet some outsiders perceive such a chant as a very convenient excuse to dismiss Occupy Wall Street (OWS) as — pick one — naïve, anarchist, communist, socialist, anti-American, selfish, lazy, or “too radical.”

Losing potential allies might understandably lead some to ditch any blatant anti-capitalism slogans but what if we instead put in the time and effort to explain the simple — and I do mean simple — reasoning behind such sentiment? 

Mic Check: Understanding capitalism and explaining its destructiveness to others does not require an advanced degree.

This isn’t about vague, inapplicable concepts like “good” or “evil,” it’s about design.

Capitalism is an economic system based on perpetual growth and the relentless exploitation of what we’ve come to call “natural resources.” By definition, such an approach is unsustainable, cannot be reformed, and is thus, anti-life.

To gain access to and control of resources, capitalism requires brutal, sustained military interventions (or the threat thereof).

Mic Check: The U.S. Department of Defense is the planet’s largest military power and the planet’s worst polluter and eats up 54 percent of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Military interventions (or the threat thereof) lead to wars, war crimes, the propping up of authoritarian regimes, poverty and repression, environmental devastation, and eventually … corporate dominion over resources.

Capitalism — in its predatory pursuit of profit — requires humans to dominate humans and humans to dominate non-humans and humans to dominate the landscape… until there’s nothing left.

Resources are finite. They cannot/will not be replicated in a laboratory. Exploiting, poisoning, and consuming the ecosystem alters the delicate and symbiotic balance of the natural world — which only leads to further devastation of our shared landbase.

Mic Check: Again, this approach is unsustainable and thus, anti-life.

Capitalism requires constant consumption. Hence, humans are re-programmed into compliant, ill-informed consumers. Pervasive propaganda/public relations keep consumers consuming, workers working, and repressors repressing (explaining why middle class cops pepper spray occupiers instead of joining up with them).

While other economic systems may address some of the vast human inequalities inherent in a capitalist society, unless such a system is designed in synchronicity with our shared ecosystem, it will do nothing to prevent the looming economic/social/environmental collapse.

Mic Check: To be an anti-capitalista is not necessarily to subscribe to any other “ism.”

To be anti-capitalist is to look beyond the next fiscal quarter, beyond national boundaries, and beyond thecorporate propaganda. To be anti-capitalist is to see past skin color, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, ability/disability, age, or species.

To be an anti-capitalista is comprehend that a system based on growth at all costs is anti-life. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-suicide, anti-ecocide, and anti-omnicide.

Capitalism has resulted in a toxic, poisoned, clear-cut landbase ravaged by unremitting war, disease, inequality, repression, incarceration, and discrimination. If the United States is the world’s shining light of “free market capitalism,” why then are its citizens left with no choice but to organize in an increasingly desperate attempt to defend human, environmental, civil, and animal rights?

To be an anti-capitalista is to risk offending those mythical (fictional?) fence sitters who would be so ready to join us if only we occupiers weren’t so damn extreme.

Mic Check: Let’s not be ashamed or afraid of being anti-capitalist, but let’s make sure we can effectively explain such a potentially controversial stance.

To be capitalist is to ignore reality. To be capitalist is to pretend that technology is neutral, humans can “control” nature, and the playing field is even. To be capitalist is to prize shareholders over solidarity, commodities over communities. Capitalism is designed to make us — wait for it now — selfish and lazy.

To be anti-capitalist is to be generous and motivated. To be anti-capitalist is to bravely see past the façade and own up to the myriad global crises. To be anti-capitalist is to have a bold new vision for the future — a future that extends well beyond today’s closing bell on Wall Street.

To be anti-capitalist is to recognize the urgent need to begin the process of creating a new system — a system not for sale to the highest bidder; not based on celebrity, material consumption, physical beauty, or military conquest; a system that promotes unity and collective action while maintaining individuality and independence; a system that challenges us to think for ourselves and about others; a system that understands the connection between human behavior and non-human life.

To be a capitalista is to act as if we are the last generation of humans.

To be an anti-capitalista is to re-imagine our relationship with the natural world.

Which role will you occupy? The future is waiting on your decision.

We are the 99%. Join us…

***

Mickey Z. is the author of 11 books, most recently the novel Darker Shade of Green. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, he can be found on an obscure website called Facebook.

© WorldNewsTrust.com — Share and re-post this story. Please include this copyright notice and a link to World News Trust.

Here is a famous passage from the gospel of John, Chapter 18:

²⁸ Thenthe Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas [the Roman-appointed Jewishhigh priest] to the palace of the Roman governor [,Pilate—the then-Prefect, or governor, of Judaea]. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.

²⁹ So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

³⁰ “If he were not a criminal,” they replied [sarcastically!], “we would not have handed him over to you.”

³¹ Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.

³² This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

³³ Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” [evidently having been informed by the “Jewish leaders” that Jesus had made this claim about himself]

³⁴ “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?” [obviously the latter, for how else would Pilate have learned this “fact” about Jesus? — a point made clear in the question that Pilate then asked Jesus:]

³⁵ “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

³⁶ Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

³⁷ “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

³⁸ “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

³⁹ But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

This story may have some basis in historical fact, but is likely mainly “just” a story—i.e., is basically fictional. Fiction can, however, present truths, and the above story is no exception. For I interpret Pilate’s “What is truth?” as a substitute for the question—a rhetorical one—that he really wanted to ask: “What does it matter, Jesus, if you are telling the truth? I am caught here between a rock and a hard place because of you. Even though your actions have presented no problems for me as Prefect of this province, if I let you go free, the Jewish leaders may incite a revolt against us Romans—and I don’t want that to happen. For my own sake, then, and for the good of the Empire, I am virtually forced to give my assent to what the Jewish leaders want done to you. I have no desire to see you crucified, but what choice do I have? In this real world that we live in, Jesus, having the truth on one’s side doesn’t count for much.”

Again, I am not claiming that the historical Pilate was thinking such thoughts prior to Jesus’s crucifixion, only that in this story I feel justified in imputing such thoughts to Pilate. The way I perceive Pilate in this story is that I perceive him as possibly being somewhat aware of what Jesus had been teaching, and even agreeing, to some degree, with the teachings that he had become aware of. As a consequence, he recognized that the charges that were being brought against Jesus were without merit, but that as a political official he needed not only to be concerned with the issue of guilt vs. innocence regarding particular individuals, but needed to consider the possible impact of his decisions on the situation in his province. For such impacts would have relevance not only for his own career, but for the continuation of “peace” (from a Roman perspective!) in the Empire.

As a citizen, I don’t envy our political leaders, for often in making decisions they need either to remain silent regarding what they are deciding, and why, or feel a need to lie about their decisions. I would like to believe that when our political leaders do the latter, they feel a twinge of guilt. However, because so often those who rise in our political system are (I fear) unscrupulous individuals for whom lying comes “natural,” I suspect that that twinges of guilt are rarely experienced in the higher reaches of our government. Some political leaders are “smoother” than others in not arousing suspicions about their integrity—e.g., I perceive Barrack Obama (“O’Bomber” to some of us!) as smoother than Willard (Mitt) Romney. But I have little confidence for politicians in general—although I have worked in the office of my County Supervisor, and have worked in the campaigns of my State Assembly Representative and State Senator, and have not felt that I have compromised my principles in doing so.

The Assault on Truth

My major complaint is with politicians at the national and state level—executive- and legislative-level politicians at the national level, executive-level politicians at the state level. The latter because as a resident of Wisconsin, I will soon be voting in the recall election of our current governor, Scott Walker. Walker is being opposed by the current Milwaukee Mayor, Thomas Barrett—with the former having already spent about 20 times as much on the election as his opponent, because of receiving funding from wealthy individuals (such as the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson), and right-wing organizations (such as ALEC and the Bradley Foundation).

We Americans have become used to being bombarded with commercials as we watch television or listen to the radio, and to see billboard advertising as we travel down the highway. We are more able to ignore billboards than advertising on radio and television, but at least with television we have the ability to click the “Mute” button. Still, not only are commercials and advertisements annoying (some more so than others!—as some are actually fun to watch), they play with our minds. Which fact is objectionable.

An ironic aspect of our society is that on the one hand there are numerous scientists in our society who are interested in discovering truths, who upon discovering what they believe to be truths write reports of what they have discovered, have those reports peer-reviewed to ensure that they have not made any mistakes, and then get their reports published. The importance of those results may be questioned by some (who may criticize the “truths” being reported as esoteric, lacking in relevance), but the “truths” themselves are rarely questioned—except, perhaps, by some who lack the “credentials” to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, in our society there are many—especially individuals/organizations in business, and individuals in politics—for whom “truth” is a foreign word. Advertisements in support of a given political candidate (e.g., Governor Walker) may make statements that are true, but which are misleading. For example, there is an advertisement running locally (in Milwaukee) that notes that the unemployment rate in the city of Milwaukee has risen substantially during the mayoral term of Thomas Barrett. This may very well be a true statement, but the implication of the statement is that a causal relationship is involved—i.e., decisions by Barrett are the one and only reason why this rate has increased. The advertisement offers no evidence in support of a causal relationship, but those who had it prepared and paid for it obviously hope that the listener will interpret the advertisement to mean that. Other advertisements present outright falsehoods, of course—which is at least as objectionable.

When one is constantly bombarded with claims regarding commercial products—and, during certain periods, political candidates—one may respond to these claims in one of two ways:

• Is this given statement true, so that I should make it a part of my belief system?
• Does a given statement conform to my belief system, so that I should, then, accept it as “true”?

Note that we have here two very different concepts of “true.” In the first case one’s view is that if the statement is one that appears to be well-supported by empirical evidence, or is a logical conclusion from known truths, the person will accept it, and make it a part of his/her belief system. Such a person has a belief system that evolves over time; not only does it expand, it changes over time as the person sheds what s/he concludes is not true, and adds new truths to her/his belief system as those truths are learned.

In the second case the person develops a certain belief system over time, but at a certain point somehow “chooses” to fix his/her belief system at that stage of development. Statements encountered after that point are then assessed, not on the basis of their “truthfulness” but, rather, on the basis of their conformance with the person’s belief system.

I would prefer living in a society within which everyone was in the first category—but I recognize (sadly, I would add), that I don’t. And, I would prefer to live in a society within which people would not make claims that are either false or misleading—but, again, I recognize that I am not living in such a society. These facts are depressing—for many of us, at any rate. One can object to these facts for a variety of reasons, but my principal reason for being saddened—and angered, I must admit—about these facts is that with, e.g., Bill Henderson (see this and this) I believe that “global warming”—or what I call Trendular Atmospheric Depatternization (or TAD, illustrating the fact that I do have a sense of humor!)—(a) is now upon us, (b) cannot be halted, (c) will severely cull the world’s population within the next few decades[1], thereby (d) leaving us humans with the sole option of adapting, as best we can, to the changes that will be inevitably occurring.[2]

As a parent (a son and two daughters) and grandparent (three girls, one boy) I fear for their future—and for two reasons. On the one hand the energy companies keep pushing for the continued use of fossil fuels—on the basis that we need to strive for energy independence, and to help solve our country’s unemployment problem. Evidently the executives of these companies are not only in denial about TAD, but are able, in good conscience, to preach denial to the American public. Those facts, along with the fact that the energy companies—and other companies with a vested interest in the status quo—carry considerable weight with our political leaders on the national scale, suggests that one would have to be a fool to expect any leadership of an adaptational nature from our national government.

My second reason for fearing the future is that I feel so impotent in being able to myself do what I believe needs to be done—develop a program that would work for the proliferation of relatively self-sufficient eco-communities, so that the culling that will undoubtedly occur, will not be quite so severe. On the one hand I see myself as providing leadership for such an effort, but on the other hand have doubts about my competence for such a “job.” I have made some attempt to attract funding for such a program, with myself at the helm, but so far have been unsuccessful—perhaps in part because I have not pursued the matter with vigor, being unsure of my ability to effectively provide leadership for such a program.

Perhaps I will be successful in this regard, perhaps I will not be. If the latter, I hope that at least someone emerges as a leader for such a movement. For the cause of saving humans is an important one—and I feel no need to offer proof in support of that claim!

Endnotes

1. Bill Henderson notes in the first of the two of his essays cited above that British scientist Kevin Anderson—an advisor to the British government on climate matters—believes it as entirely possible that the world’s population will be culled by 90%–I repeat, 90%—within the next 50 years.
2. James Lovelock, in his most recent (and final?) book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, 2010, devotes Chapter 5 to “Geoengineering.” However, he admits in that chapter that he has little confidence in the ability of “geoengineering” to solve the problem of “global warming”/TAD.

About the author: Al Thompson works (data management) for an Engineering (Avionics) firm in Milwaukee. Click here to mail him.