Separatism for Lakota Indians and Australian Aborigines

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States. Long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said....

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us.The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship."

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

The move is completely legal after the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration for the rights of indigenous people, and the fact that the treaties have been repeatedly violated. The main reasons for this move are horrifying statistics; Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots."

It seems to me that the Lakota Indians need separatism for their own "racial" survival. If the rates of infant mortality are so high, moving closer to U.S cities with proper health facilities would improve these statistics. Hence, I believe this move is to preserve their racial and cultural identity.

This reminds me of the Australian Aborigines, who through forced assimilation, as a population have also been decimated racially and culturally.

I really admire Glen Atkinson 's gusto, that he has the courage of his convictions to stand up and fight for his people, regardless of the ramifications to himself for his actions. (very Emma Goldman!). He believes that the Australian court system and police have no power over him or his people.

"I don't believe they [white man] have the jurisdiction to adjudicate Aboriginal people under law. "

I totally support the indigenous people of this country to maintain the land in the way that they see fit, without intervention from the Australian Government or its immigrant population. If you believe immigrant to be a pejorative term, it is, and I refer to the original (and current) immigrants to this land. Ideally, what Glen is expressing here is the right for his people to form autonomous Aboriginal communities. Communities built along racial and cultural separatism, no different from the Lakota Indians in the United States, who based on statistics shown, is necessary for their survival. Many of the Australian Aboriginal dialects are already extinct, and the people who call themselves Aboriginal are far from what their traditional ancestors looked like. I think it's terribly sad, that white man has caused such devastation to an indigenous people. Unfortunately, these are the effects of large scale immigration to any population, where the only solution is separatism (not forced, but voluntary); an anarchist community based along racial and cultural homogeneity.

I do not say these things lightly, as I believe they are highly controversial, however, for the preservation of the indigenous people of both Australia and the United States, this course of action is a necessity. To waste time over moralising arguments is to deny the right of a these people their chance at survival in a world seeking to form a uniform hegemony. For the preservation of biodiversity, the Australian Aborigines and the Lakota Indians must be allowed to form their own autonomous communities, free from state intervention in whatever manner they deem appropriate.

References:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22951412-661,00.html

A Dangerous Woman

Book Review:

I've just finished reading my first graphic novel "A Dangerous Woman" by Sharon Rudahl. It's a biography of Emma Goldman, a Russian Jewish Anarchist from the twentieth century living in the United Sates. I have to say, it's one of the most entertaining and informative reads about Emma's life. I can see why people get into comics, and while it's strange to think of an anarchist as a "super hero", Emma was nothing short of an extraordinary person. She pushed boundaries not just for statists, but for women, overtly expressing the right for a woman to execute her will with her stance on free love and birth control. Ultimately she would be considered a staunch feminist and proudly Jewish, and yet she didn't approve of women's suffrage, and I doubt she would approve of Zionism. Emma is just as much a revolutionary in her time, as she would be now, and all the sacrifices and challenges she faced are still relevant today.

Emma served multiple jail terms, with a 2 year stint for her opposition to World War I. While in jail any benefits she received she equally shared among the prison population, she was a true socialist.

What I believe to be the most relevant to the current political foray was the 1903 anti-anarchist law in the United States which prohibited entry to anyone opposed to organised Government. This law was passed after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 by Czologsz (an anarchist), for which Emma was accused of being involved.

In 1903 an English anarchist by the name of John Turner was to give a lecture, but was refused entry to the U.S to which Emma established a free speech league. This particularly struck me as being relevant, as we see many people today barred entry into certain countries and even jailed for speaking out about certain topics. For those who believe certain topics should be barred, I give you Emma's speech......

Free Speech means nothing if it does not mean the freedom to say what
others don't want to hear

She chained herself to a light pole and continued to say that under the first amendment, free speech meant that she can write and say as she pleased..... Times haven't really changed, Oh, Emma, if only you were still here...

What also fascinated me about Emma was her steadfast belief in equality between men and women, and yet refused to accept women's suffrage. Instead she was quoted as saying

Women's suffrage will mean more meddling and regulating morals

In a republic there are many ways for the strong, the
cunning, and the rich to seize power and hold it!

Some of Emma's non-anarchists influences included the nihilists and Nietzsche, so it's no surprise that she wasn't particularly fond of moralising arguments.

I can't honestly do this book any justice, it's a great read, and there are so many facets to Emma and her extraordinary self-sacrifice for the greater good. She is truly inspirational.

The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue.

So what are you? A dunce or a rogue?

Santa is an anagram for satan

It's that time of year again when we all go into significant debt to buy crap for people we don't like, and for which they don't need. How did this happen, and why would you want to prevent people from celebrating Santa style consumerism?

Ironically, it was puritan Christians arriving to America in 1492 who celebrated jolly old saint nic which today has become a secular holiday. I couldn't quite understand why primary schools and pre-schools in Australia would ban Santa Claus from visiting and putting up the traditional tree and decorations, quoting that it would cause offense to our newly arrived migrants. Now, I can understand that Christmas is a christian holiday, and not all people in Australia are Christians. However, saint nic is only loosely associated with Christianity, and in fact, if you ask any christian what they think of Santa they will say he is co-opting the real meaning and message of Christmas. So, why ban the guy? Last time I checked, he was one of the few people who saw past religion, race, gender and class. Doesn't Santa conceptually represent the most egalitarian person in the world today?

I think in Australia, if you're trying to create another cronulla, the best thing you can do, is ban Santa from the mainstream secular crowd.

For me personally, I think the whole Christmas consumerism is highly over-rated, but realistically, we're talking about banning a secular holiday. Go figure.

Then of course, there was Santa's highly controversial 'ho ho ho', which was deemed offensive to women. Again, last time I checked, there hasn't ever been a female Santa Claus, so saint nic has always been an offensive sexist bastard. Why change now? Personally, I always liked that about him, and his ability to scare the crap out of little kids.

I always wondered too, why is it when we're told to save energy and 'go green', all these western consumers are putting up Christmas lights sucking down thousands of kilowatts of energy? Combine this with our obligation to spend $30 per person on everyone we've ever known, and you've got the perfect breeding ground for the best consumer holiday for corporations EVER.

This year, my wife and I have decided, no Christmas presents for anyone; period. This includes people who tenaciously keep to handing out gifts even after we've begged them not too. This means of course, come Christmas day with the "out-laws" we have to graviously accept gifts while looking the giver in the eye and say " sorry, nothing for you". It's such a scummy thing to do, but in the long run, they get the message, and they too will stop handing out useless gifts.... eventually ending the cycle of needless consumerism.

"Christmas Consumerism" by Scotty Zuke, who has the down low....

It's that time of year again: The Annual Holiday-Themed Mass Consumption Month! Actually, that's not exactly correct. It used to be just a month, but every year the Christmas shopping season is stretched a bit further to boost sales. If you think about it, it's truly remarkable how we Americans are driven into a buying frenzy. The Christmas music is usually the first sign. Malls and stores will begin playing the music earlier every year, tricking the shoppers into thinking that the holiday season is quickly approaching. Besides that, it is scientifically proven that background music affects shopping habits, and I can't help but imagine that the music associated with Christmas is extremely powerful in increasing buying.

National or Notional Anarchists?

So what are the different kinds of anarchists? Well, here's my list of all the ones I could find, and in no particular order.....

Indivdualists Anarchist; Autarchism; Collectivist Anarchist; Anarchist Communism; Anarcho-Sydnicalism; Anarcho-capitalism; Agorist; Christian Anarchist; Orthodox Anarchist; Punk Anarchist; Green Anarchists; National Anarchist; Market-left libertarian; Crypto-Anarchism; Analytical Anarchism; Left Anarchy; Right Anarchy; Insurrectionary Anarchy; I'm sure the list goes on.....

My personal favourite, Anarchism without adjectives is an ideology which tolerates the coexistence of different anarchist schools. I wanted to do a post about this as there seems to be a lot of talk lately about what constitutes an anarchist, and the right for one group or person to call themselves an anarchist, and their dismissal of alternative schools of thought as not.

"Intellectual property and the title anarchist" by Royce Christian

It's amazing that while most Anarchists, of all stripes, reject intellectual property laws as simply a construct of the state, the most extreme among us have this tendency to enforce their factions ownership of the term 'Anarchist'. Truly, it is amazing to see. Fanatical Anarchists unquestioningly support their own brand of Anarchism denounce all others as somehow 'fake'. They are in fact the largest hypocrites among us. These are the people who have a unyielding confidence in what they know is the truth, the way and the light. Anything that doesn't accept this obvious truth is deemed false and thus statist. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this kind of unreasoned fanaticism has many proponents within the Anarchist movement.

Let's consider the National Anarchists, as they seem to be the most polarizing of all the different factions. National anarchism has its origins in the UK, and is largely the brainchild of Troy Southgate, an individual with a long history of involvement in the British neo-Nazi movement, including organisations such as the National Front, the International Third Position, the English Nationalist Movement and the National Revolutionary Faction. Critic Graham D. Macklin notes that “When put into its wider context… ‘national-anarchism’ appears as one of many groupuscular responses to globalization, popular antipathy towards which Southgate sought to harness by aligning [his activities]… with the resurgence of anarchism whose heroes and slogans it arrogated, and whose sophisticated critiques of global capitalist institutions and state power it absorbed…”. In essence, ‘national anarchism’ is an attempt to use anarchist rhetoric and imagery in order to better advance the cause of reactionary, racist and fascist politics.

So, we've established that national anarchism itself was created by fascists and is thus considered a racist form of anarchism (because it's anti-state). Wikipeadia has a lot to say on the topic of the history of Anarchism with Nationalism , so in reality, the idea isn't particularly new, and is really just the rehash of an old story.

But are they really racist, or just exclusionary? I believe the later, but I'll come to that in a moment. I believe that national anarchism isn't just for Europeans, but rather national anarchism embodies the idea that people can form communities based upon lines that suit their interests.

Each type of anarchism which I've listed above is just that. A group of anarchists who have come together along an issue which they believe to be important. Be it, social (communism anarchists), economic (agorist), religious (orthodox or christian). These are all anarchists who have formed a group with similar ideas.

In the words of a famous european anarchist; Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Whoever puts his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant. I declare him my enemy.

My conscience is mine, my justice is mine, and my freedom is a sovereign freedom.

Under anarchist doctrine, people have the freedom to form groups based along whatever issues are important to them. Further, freedom includes the freedom to hate, the freedom to offend, and the freedom of self-expression, on the basis that there is no physical harm impacted upon another.

From my point of view the killing of another, except in defense of human life, is archistic, authoritarian, and therefore, no Anarchist can commit such deeds. It is the very opposite of what Anarchism stands for...
Joseph Labadie

"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."
Leo Tolstoy

Therefore, so long as there is no violence against another, the principle of national anarchism is a principle of freedom of association. National Anarchism is really something in which we all practise with our different forms of anarchism. Instead of the term National Anarchism, we can change the name to "ideas based anarchy" or "community anarchy". It seems to me, that each group of people organicly formed will be based upon principles agreed upon by that community. Be it religious doctrine, racial, cultural or sexual orientation homogeneity. That is, communities can form along homosexual lines, along identity politics or economical politics. Regardless of your particular opinion as to the validity of these communities, the reality is, that they will form, and in fact, your allegiance to a particular school of anarchistic thought, is by it's nature exclusionary and a form of national anarchism.

So why national anarchism? Based on my assumptions above that it's not neccessarily racially based, but based on any idea or principle important to individuals, "National" is the description of what the community is. After all, each community can be considered a "Nation unto itself". One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. These nations - as described are anarchistic schools of thought. So, in essence we are all national anarchists - but what about the European National Anarchists? These are the National Anarchists who wish to form along racial lines, or upon identity politics.

My answer - remains the same. Freedom. Freedom from co-ercion is the highest form of anarchy. The ability of a "nation" (as described in this post) to self-determination. Further, there are other racially based anarchists out there who believe identity politics is important. Power 2 the people is an African American Socialist Anarchist, with a strong emphasis on anti-racism, and yet has strong support for the Black Panther Party, and the struggle for his African brothers under their current dictatorship and imperialism. If this is not racist, how can Europeans with the same strong ethnocentric community ties be considered to be racist? While this isn't the main point of the article, and needs much further investigation, I think it's important to note, that National Anarchism, the rise of "nations" of anarchy, are a central doctrine of any true anarchist. The fact that we disagree on certain ideas and principles, which gives rise to the different factions only further supports the principle that:

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

- Rudyard Kipling

and thus, National Anarchism is one answer to such a dilemma.

We the people will not be chipped

RFID or Radio-Frequency-Identification tags have been used to track product shipments, enable digital payments on transport systems and tollways, identify animals such as cattle, migrating birds and pets, protect fleet or privately owned motor vehicles. But are we becoming a surveillance state?

The use of RFID technology has engendered considerable controversy and even product boycotts by consumer privacy advocate Caspian (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) refer to RFID tags as "spychips". The two main privacy concerns regarding RFID are:

1. Since the owner of an item will not necessarily be aware of the presence of a RFID tag and the tag can be read at a distance without the knowledge of the individual, it becomes possible to gather sensitive data about an individual without consent.

2. If a tagged item is paid for by credit card or in conjunction with use of a loyalty card, then it would be possible to indirectly deduce the identity of the purchaser by reading the globally unique ID of that item (contained in the RFID tag).

In a corporate consumer spy incident, which was uncovered by the Chicago Sun-Times, shelves in a Wal-Mart in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, were equipped with readers to track the Max Factor Lipfinity lipstick containers stacked on them. Webcam images of the shelves were viewed 750 miles (1200 km) away by Procter & Gamble researchers in Cincinnati, Ohio, who could tell when lipsticks were removed from the shelves and observe the shoppers in action.

.... and just to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, the FDA has approved the use of the chips in humans......

In 2006, Cincinnati, two employees for the company citywatcher were forced to be micro-chipped with an RFID tag for improved security access to valuable data storage areas. The Baja Beach nightclub in Barcelona reportedly uses RFID implants to track regular patrons and allow them to pay for drinks electronically, while the Mexican Attorney-General's Office implanted 18 of its staff with tags to control access to a secure data room. Other suggested uses for the RFID chip include their inclusion into National Identity cards and replacing soldier dog tags with the implantable chip.

Although, not all tags are implanted within the body, in Japan and the U.K there is at least one active school where children are micro-chipped (on their bags or name tags) in order to track their movements in the interests of security. Ah, yes, the old propaganda technique "What about the children?", "do it for the children" and my personal favourite "But, we must protect the children".... kinda of reminds me of Labour (tweddle dee) and Liberal (tweddle dumb)'s education revolution... but alas, I will save this for another time. The United Sates is already undergoing biometric data collection of children at primary schools in the interests of finding them quickly if they are abducted or assaulted, but then, isn't it easier to introduce a National I.D card when you already have all the information, you just need to wait a generation or two.....

Getting back to the real matter at hand - Japan is looking to create an Island where everything is RFID chipped.

The nation is looking to set up an "experimental landmass" where a smorgasbord of sensors will "allow doctors to remotely monitor the health of the elderly," and in another instance, "monitor the movement of pedestrians and notify nearby drivers." Additionally, IC tags could be implanted into produce in order to divulge information such as where it was grown to a shopper's mobile phone. Reportedly, the government is talking with local telecom carriers, electronics manufacturers, automakers, and several "other companies" as it attempts to assemble the pieces, and while no specific test site has been nailed down just yet, "the northern island of Hokkaido or southern island chain of Okinawa" are currently the most likely candidates

(so much for the "size of a grain of rice" propaganda)

Makes you want to join the amish really.....

But for those of you who are more fight than flight, here is a legal company in America McKenna Long & Aldridge pushing to change the laws to encourage the uptake of the RFIP chip. http://rfidlawblog.mckennalong.com/ Bastards!

Which just goes to show, companies might be pushing for these things to happen (micro-chipping the population), but someone is actually doing the bidding of these companies, because of the pressure to conform to the organisational culture (or they have bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker). We need to bring back social shaming! The excuse that you were "Just doing your job" just doesn't cut the mustard. Stand up for your rights, stand up in your workplace when the wrong thing is happening. Don't assume it's someone else's problem. We all have a responsibility to expose the truth. If you work for a company that is pushing this agenda, expose them!

References:

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,,22785408-5013038,00.html

http://rfidlawblog.mckennalong.com/

http://www.privacy.org.au/Campaigns/ID_cards/HSAC.html

http://personallifemedia.com/blogs/living-green/2007/08/03/16-million-study-human-rfid-implants/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/15/japan-looking-to-establish-wireless-island/

Anti-Cap Christians? Hallelujah!

Normally I don't have a lot of time for your typical Christian, instead I feel much like Jesus in the temple with the money changers. (lots of frothing at the mouth going on). So i was pleasantly surprised when I came across The Church of Stop Shopping. Finally some Christians who seem like they've actually read the bible. After all, didn't Jesus say "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven". Which is why I particularly love this Reverends anti-consumerist message. Here is the article I particularly liked, and if fact, I think it's time we started to see street theatre in Australia. Enjoy.

Here I am at Zombie-con last Saturday. 100 of us went on a bloody disgusting rampage of NYC. Bloomingdales was our first stop. We entered the mega store groaning and limping, arms outstretched in search of brains. Gaylen and I inserted blood capsules into our mouths at the escalators and drooled in close proximity to the stunned costumers. Some people, especially the workers, were smiling and I suddenly worried that we were entertainment, endorsing this company with our playful antics. But then I saw what was really happening around us; People had stopped shopping! The were staring at us, interacting with us, looking at the fellow living and wondering what the hell was going on. Near the makeup counter I yelled out to a group of them in my lowest, freakiest voice, “I NEED A FACIAL!” Laughter erupted from the living and the undead. I was proud. I called the Reverend to tell him of our successes in the first mall reminding him of his call to the congregation to, “Disturb the customer!” We continued on to many stores that day. The Disney store was my favorite. Screaming children and little creepy dolly eyes surrounding the rampage. One mother hid her child’s eyes as I posed for a picture with Mickey’s hand on my crotch.

To continue reading the article from The church of Stop Shopping click here

Dont forget to check out the youtube video of Reverend Bill and his followers in starbucks.

But if you want a really good belly chuckle, check out my favourite comedian George Carlin.... on materialism and consumerism... "The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged" and "nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care", "it's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it!"

Practical Revolutionary Economics - Part II

(Following on from the previous post The Economics of Revolution, we now have the concluding part II, with acknowledgements to Royce Christian for his assistance).

Undergound currency or counter economics is a non-violent means to undermine capitalism. The term was originally coined by Samuel Edward Konkin, who defined it as

"the the study and/or practice of all peaceful human action which is forbidden by the State".

The main reasons I suggested we encorporate counter economics in our daily lives was for the following;

Reduces demand on currency by providing an alternative (reduces inflation, consumption)

Ensures a social infrastructure capable of autonomous function with redundancy protection from State failure.

Companies
While not a true anarchist example, I personally believe that a simple way to give back to employees is to engage them in the business through shares. Instead of privatising the company where shares are sold on the market, employees are given shares in the company. Unlike normal shares these cannot be privately sold and are retained only while the person is in employment with the company. Call them an employee bonus scheme or something, where the business profits go back into those who worked hard for the business profits in the first place.

This method has two functions. Firstly, it redistributes the earnings of the business (not neccisarily in a socialist manner, rather contribution means tested). Secondly, the employees feel better about themselves and their jobs knowing that they are working not just for a nameless facless company, but also their own livelihood. I think it makes people more proud of their work. Finally, instead of there being a direct contradiction between an employee and the shareholders (people being laid off because of reduced profits), there is no contradiction between the two. The shareholders are the employees who retain stocks only while they are in employment with the company, and are returned to the company on the employees departure. It's private ownership, so it's not anarchist per se, but it's not capitalist either.

Barter or Trade

I rememer years ago family and friends decided to clean out their wardrobe of their old clothes and shoes. I don't generally like giving to charity because of the lack of control once you hand over your money or your items to their final location. Instead we put all the clothes in a bag and they went around the group. When the bag eventually came back to you, anything of yours still in there was removed and given to charity or thrown out. Instead of doing this with just clothes, why not do it with all sorts of items? If you don't want to setup your own group, you can use Freecycle instead.

I have also heard cases of tradesmen swapping their trades for mutual benefit. This is especially true in country towns. Generally alcohol is used a counter currency, otherwise, straight out bater is done, where a plumber will do a bathroom in exchange for electrical re-wiring. The funny thing is about these sorts of trades is people place more emphasis on quality and professionalism because instead of trading money, they trade their name and reputation.

Alternative Currency

I remember when I was younger my mother belonged to this baby-sitting group. They didn't pay each other, instead they had these cut up pieces of laminate flooring (weired I know). The would exchange one piece of this laminate flooring for every hour that they baby-sat. No money exchanged, and no tit for tat with a large group involved. If you only have one or two people, the onus is that if you do 5 hours of babysitting, you expect the other person to do 5 hours. With the laminate flooring system, you didn't have to do baby-sitting for the person who did it for you. It was a great system, unusual, but it worked.

Alternative currencies available on the market include liberty dollars, Pheonix dollars, Ithaca Hours and digital gold currency like e-gold. These alternative currencies are denominated by weight and backed by a commodity (unlike the U.S or AUS $). Thus, these currencies are designed to be absolutely free of any financial risk. (I.e. assume something happens to the Australian economy and it goes bust, having your money backed by gold means you have little to worry about). There is also no debt or contingent liabilities associated with these systems. However, "the use of these gold and silver NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions as circulating money is a Federal crime in the US". Oh well, you've been warned.

Before anyone decides to swap all their cash for e-gold, just remember "Caveat Emptor" Buyer Beware as it has been suggested that some of these guys only say they have gold backed dollars, in reality it could just be a virtual currency.

Establishing the Neighbourhood

Growing your own fruits or vegetables can be a great way to get to know the neighbours. We've all seen the lemon tree in the font yard, and we've all gone and asked nicely for a few lemons. I read in the paper a while back about a Reverend who grew tomatoes next to his picket fence that people would help themselves to. He said he didn't mind because that was the whole idea. While probably not cost effective monetarily speaking, there is no value on the forging of relationships with those around you. This is social infrastructure.

Another thing you have to remember about counter economics, is that not everyone has to be an anarchist to participate, you will find people are likely to participate because it benefits them, unwittingly contributing to the free-market, making it stronger. So go out there and get involved, and if you have any ideas to add to this, or any feedback send us an email at anarchistalex@yahoo.com

Is it possible to be an Anarchist in an Authoritarian world?

Having, as I have, a long and heavy past of political idealism it’s easy to notice that, each year – or even each day, it’s becoming harder and harder to remain truly an Anarchist without drawing negative attention to oneself. Given that the Anarchist creed implicates that we stand up for freedom of speech, a freedom that is ever more threatened by either restrictive laws pushed by national governments or by Bruxels regime (1), or even due to the ideological obscurantism that painted our world in Black and White, divided in “good” and “evil”, resulting that true Anarchists – those that stand up for absolute freedom of speech and opinion for all – end up being accused sometimes as “fascists” and others as “communists”, depending on the political guidelines (the artificial Right/Left) of those that disagree with your point of view.

Given the Portuguese example, we have ever more governmental decisions that are taken without the approval of the people (most recent cases being Flexi security and the European Treaty). We have a regulating governmental entity that rules over the press – something that does not seen all that democratic. In the colleges, political parties youth wings and in the opinion columns of the newspapers we witness what Joaquim Letria (2) labeled as “self censorship”, when people restrain themselves to voice publicly certain opinions that might look bad or raise a cloud of negative suspicion over its authors by their professors, editors or even some parcel of the public that might be organized as a lobby.

To continue reading the Article by Flavio Goncalves click here

A similar story at The Gerilla Capitalist.

Shun the Non Believers

Red Anarchists, as has been stated, have a tendency to shun everyone who does not subscribe to their particular brand of Anarchism. Their street level activism is highly important to the movement as a whole and should not be forgotten nor overlooked. This is their strength and the strength and a huge force for the Anarchist movement as a whole. The same applies to Anarcho-Capitalists within their own sphere of influence. Though they may not be working the streets to the extent of Red Anarchists, or other older brands of Anarchism, it is undeniable that they work hard to deal with and rebuff statists at the intellectual level on a regular basis. I would hope Red Anarchists can accept this and congratulate Anarcho-Capitalists for their work. Both sides excel at the others weakness, with the opposite being true for their strengths. This should not be forgotten.

To continue reading the Article by Royce Christian click here

The Economics of Revolution - Part I

The current political system is robust because of it's strong economic model, so the old axiom, "the larger they are, the harder they fall" comes to mind. So what is the best way to bring down capitalism, and re-institute a more socialist, communitarian model? To do this, we need to look at economics and currency under the current model.

Money is an aid for barter, and in reality a piece of paper where two people have agreed upon the value for trade (that is the purchase of goods or services). Money is a valuable resource only because it is used by the state to pay taxes and fines, it is a commodity that is forced onto the community.

So, let us assume that we live in a tribe and rare shells are used as currency. Suppose that only one person in the tribe knows where the shells are found. This person then has a monopoly on the economy. They are able to trade more than their share, by injecting more currency into the economy, which long term makes the shells worth less. (that is, you need more and more shells to trade for the same amount of goods). So this one individual becomes quite wealthy at the expense of the other tribesman.

While a simple example, this effectively describes the function of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank is a privately owned company with a monopoly on the production of local currency, effectively, making your dollar worth less and less. It is assumed by most people that the Australian Government produces Australian currency. This is untrue. The Australian Government has debts owed to the Reserve Bank who produce the currency, and it is our taxes that pay the loan.

As anarchists, there are a few options for us.

Firstly, lets look at radical change. If everyone in the country withdrew all their currency at one time, the economy would collapse. The fractional lending system is based on the fact that 10X more money is loaned out than what the banks actually have. If everyone went at one time to collect their money from the banks, bankrupcy would ensue. The economy would collapse, however, this would only be a temporary measure. Due to the global nature of the economy now, we would find that within 24 hours, the economy would be running again thanks to injections of "liquidity" from overseas. (This just means some rich arsehole realises his system is about to collapse, so he puts his own money into the system to keep it running). Hence, for a radical change, we need a mass critical number to withdraw their funds globally.

However, I have some grave concerns over the plans of our global NWO. If capitalism failed and all currencies became de-valued, money would become concentrated in the hands of a few. As people sell off their assets and liquidate into cash assets, things like houses and businesses are sold for pennies on the dollar. (The great depression of 1929), resulting in people with vast wealth increasing their wealth. So while for you and me the economy is bad, inflation is high, food is scarce, the very wealthy become exceedingly wealthly.

The trick is once the economy falls, not to re-instate their (statist) currency.

I believe the follow on effect from a global economic collapse will be the establishment of a global currency. A currency that is able to handle the ebs and flows of local market fluctations due to civil war or the like. At this point, we need to limit the use of the new currency to prevent it's uptake. Again, this is difficult when taxes and fines are used to pay the state.

So then, what is the best method to subvert the capitalist system?

The best thing you can do, is to start networking with people. They don't have to be anarchists, they just need to be able to offer you something.

Try instituting a barter system, or trading your skills. Anything that doesn't reqiure the exchange of state supplied cash, which is also referred to as "underground currency".

Underground currency systems already exist, like the exchange of alcohol or cigarettes in prison. We need to start implementing systems outside the current socio-political model, to start building our own de-centralised communities. This serves two functions, the first; with a mass critical number you can cause the economy to collapse (which is less likely), but the second, is to have in place our own economic system for when the currrent system does collapse. What we need to do is start building social infrastructure, which places more than a dollar value on our relationships with the economy.

coming soon... part II - Practical Revolutionary Economics

The 10 commandments of Anarchy

enjoy :-)

1.Thou shall seek to destroy capitalism in all forms

This is the first and foremost greatest commandment for all Anarchists. Everything flows from this first commandment. Anarchists seek to subvert the capitalist system and capitalists themselves at any appropriate time.

2.Thou shall disengage from the system and NOT worship consumerism

Anarchists should seek to reduce their inputs into the system. This includes any form of financial input which maintains capitalism, in particular Anarchists should NOT consume goods from the multi-national, like McDonalds, KFC, Bunnings or Harvey Norman et al. and instead support small business enterprise. Think about setting up a local co-op, and use credit unions instead of banks, or Richies supermarkets which donate profits to community groups.

3.Thou shall seek self-sufficiency
Following on from commandment 2, Anarchists should learn to make their own clothes, grow their own food, and any form of self-sufficiency. This reduces an individuals need to operate within the capitalist system. Alternatively, using trade or the barter system amongst similarly minded people. Anarchists should constantly seek to improve themselves through the development of their skill set. This includes; martial arts for self-defense, learning mechanical skills for fixing cars, plumbing or any other household repairs.

4. Thou shall Respect the sovereignty of others
Respect the soverignty of individuals and their right to choose. That means Anarchists do not use violence nor coercion against any individual for their right to express opinions no matter how different from our own as long as their actions or words are not physically harming or coercing another. What we oppose is the system and corporations who are treated as individuals but without accountability. Subverting the system DOES not literally mean SMASHING the system.

5. Thou shall go forth and multiply
Like Christians who go out and evangelise to increase their numbers, so too should an Anarchist. Learn how to network and communicate your ideas to new people. The system will never change if we only associate with like minded people.

6.Thou shall encourage freedom of speech
Anarchists should see the abolition of censorship by the media, State, and individuals. Repression of freedom establishes fear, and disengages individuals from their political people power, which only serves to increase apathy and maintaining the status quo.

7. Thou shall NOT give away personal information to authorities

Anarchists should never use programs such as facebook or myspace where personal information is easily available for authorities to obtain. Anarchists should be in the habit of using Proxy servers to limit the availability of their IP address being available in the ether for tracking. Unless you are asked specifically by the authorities for your personal information, don't give it away for nothing.

8. Thou shall work together for the benefit of mankind

Anarchists should endeavour to work for the greater good, rather than seeking to increase their stature. Anarchists involvement in the movement should not be for financial gain (obviously), but should also avoid the pitfalls of narcissitic self-importance by Anarchist community notoriety, which borders on self-appointed charismatic leaders. Thus, Anarchists should work for the betterment of the community, not for themselves, which, in practice includes community service. This promotes anarchy as an option for social change; Food not bombs is a good example.

9. Thou shall NOT commit anarchy while in the presence of an agent of the law
You're no good to the movement if you're caught. Check to see if police or other authoritarian is present first!

10. Thou shall be paranoid when discussing actions against capitalism

Unlawful actions against capitalism (i.e. spray painting) should not be discussed, and follows from commandment 8 that Anarchists can find themselves entraped due to the pitfalls of egocentrism. Always assume that even your lawful actions (creating a co-op) are going to be subject to infiltrators and trolls who seek to maintain capitalism.

Bank staff push ethics

Industrial Action

The Age, October 29, 2007, In Brief

"Westpac staff want the right to refuse to push financial products such as insurance, credit cards and hefty personal loans on customers who cannot meet their repayments. The staff are demanding their new enterprise agreement severs the link between performance pay and the sale of loan and credit, especially given the record level of household debt in Australia.

But they are heading for a clash with Westpac, which, like all banks, increasingly requires staff to be more entrepreneurial. The employees are also up against industrial relations laws that prevent unions from negotiating "conscience clauses" or engaging in action that disrupts the right to run a business."

Your future is our future

(Westpac's latest slogan)

Westpac's latest advertising (propaganda) campaign shows a number of Australians from diverse backgrounds whom Westpac is declaring that the fate of their future is the fate of Westpac's future, and even includes images of penguins struggling on icebergs with upbeat and hip music.

Considering the disaster in America with sub-prime mortgage loans and the global impact during their demise, one would think that Australian financial institutions would be more realistic in their sales targets. Rather we see banks like Westpac push their employees for a 20% increase per annum in selling credit and loans in exchange for 5% salary bonuses.

Is it a case of those who can't teach, do; and those who wont do, advertise?

News Just In - War with Iran and more Protesting

News hot off the press, War with Iran is imminent!

My finance industry source has informed me that in Australia as of today Oct 26, 2007 all financial transactions to Iran are to be halted IMMEDIATELY. Any employee who disregards the latest embargo will be placed on sanctions.

The Australian newspaper describes how U.S embargos are being forced through the international finance community.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22651090-2703,00.html

The fact that Western Countries are halting all economic involvement with Iran can mean only one thing, we soon will be at war with Iran. The powers that be have been planting the idea of Weapons of Mass destruction in the media over the last year or two. Now we wait for the official announcement.

In other news....

Anti-Fascist Protest at Football Federation Victoria
by Michael Williams

Yesterday I was one of the few to attend the anti-fascist protest at the Football Federation in Thornbury. I was probably the only Anarchist to attend, to those who were too busy or too lazy, SHAME ON YOU! (this includes you Alex)!

The protest wasn't very exciting but the main goal was achieved thanks to Anthony Main, the media liason who organised the response from the Federation. A media statement was released stating they had no involvement in the decision to allow a fascist rock concert, and they regret it happening and claim it won't happen again......

The rock concert was held on October 13th by the two main "bonehead" groups in Melbourne, Blood and Honour and Southern Cross Hammerskins, who held their annual gig to commemorate the death of Ian Stuart, who formed Blood and Honour and ended up dying in a drunken car crash.

Now all we can do is continue to fight the system. I personally believe that as much as I hate Nazis, these petty fascist groups aren't as big a problem as others. Our main concern as Anarchists should be fighting the state and the many forms of capitalism.

Keep up the fight everyone, to those that joined me yesterday, well done!

White Guilt Week

Or some such malarkey. I thought it might be time to tread the fine line between free speech and pissing people off on some racial issue. Hence the title, White Guilt Week.

Indigenous reconciliation hasn't quite become a mainstream issue yet, despite John Howard's superficial attempts at some vague symbolic gesture.

The indigenous issue aside, I feel it's important to note some observations, which I'll relate back to the Aboriginal story. Today I was speaking with a colleague who happens to be from Singapore, half Indian, half Chinese, with Australian citizenship (boy is that a mouthful!). Based on his racial heritage I think it's safe to say he has the ability to discuss race without the knee jerk response of being considered a racist.

We talked about martial arts, and he was discussing his sensei who had studied in Japan, to which i asked "is he Japanese?" to which he replied "no, Aussie".

"No, Aussie"? In colloquial terms, he was referring to the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant.

I have also noticed that people are too often afraid to mention racial heritage when describing what a person looks like. This makes it incredibly difficult when trying to figure out who they're referring to. For heavens sake, if the person is Chinese, just say "the Chinese looking lady", or if you're not sure they are from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, or if they are Australian Born Chinese (ABC) simply say "the asian lady". It's certainly not "racist" to make a judgement on what you think someones racial heritage is. I was honestly suprised when my colleague was uncomfortable to use the term "white" to describe someone of Anglo-Saxon heritige. Thus, it seems to me that describing a person's race is not something that just effects "white fellas" but rather an issue that effects everyone in this country.

I am the politically correct apostate.

I fail to see how the euphemism "Aussie" relates to an Anglo-Saxon, and I have the ability to say this as a 7th generation Australian, as my ancestors arrived on the first fleet to this country. I have a direct connection to the colonization disaster for the Indigenous people. For this i feel shame as well as pride. Shame for what it has done for their people, and pride for mine. The pride part is important, important because it allows the issue of reconciliation to become a national mainstream issue.

When you approach a typical "Aussie" on the street about reconciliation, the majority of the time they will not want to talk about the issue or accept the blame for past wrongs. I have two theories as to why.

1.) Blame Game - who wants to deal with shame? Who wants to take that on? I've got enough shame over my addiction, my consumerism, my blah blah blah. Shame is negative, it brings people down, and it's not the way to make friends (something about honey flies and vinegar).

2.) The immigration issue. Immigrants claim to be as Australian as myself, a 7th generation Ango-Saxon colonial. However, because a migrant has no direct connection (as I do) to the British history or a connection to Indigenous history, they don't take on their responsibility for Aboriginal Reconciliation. (I'm stereotyping here).

There are two things that need to change for real Aboriginal Reconciliation. Firstly, migrants who accept they are Australian, should accept their personal role in the Aboriginal story. By accepting the old euphemism "Aussie" to refer to the Anglo-Saxon, they are in an indirect way dismissing Aboriginal suffering as a white issue alone. You cannot become an Australian citizen without taking on the Aboriginal story. If as a new Australian citizen you refuse to accept your role in Aboriginal suffering and that it is an anglo only issue, as time marches on, with further immigration, the Indigenous people of this country will never see justice, acceptance and convalesce.

Secondly, many Anglos are proud of Australia (their role in WWII as one example), and focusing on all the negatives, only further alienates them from the history of Aboriginal suffering. There needs to be access to both the pride and shame in the history of this country, and for all of us, 7th generation Anglo and first generation migrant to accept not only our historical role, but also our individual roles. This will only take place when we remove the "Aussie" euphemism in our vernacular as the old Ango-Saxon stereotype.

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

I wrote a post a little while ago about Free Speech, holding the party line and disgraced Professor Andrew Fraser making comments about different races, and since then I've come across another dishonoured professor.

"Harvard President Lawrence Summers was driven out of his university post in 2005 after he suggested at a conference that gender differences might account for an under representation by women in science, math and engineering."

The article from Real Clear Politics goes on to say....

"Summers, the Blasphemer was banished into the outer darkness. There's no debating that he was punished for saying something that made a special group feel bad -- the new blacklisting offense. To be called a sexist, racist or homophobe today is tantamount to being a communist sympathizer 50-60 years ago."

The question of whether hate speech is free speech has again arisen, this time in the Sunday Age, News Extra pg 20 "Race, Hate and DNA" on October 21, 2007. Nobel Prize winner Professor James Watson has stated in regards to Africans

"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

However his comments were deemed so offensive that a sold out talk he was to give at the science museum in London was cancelled, stating

"We feel that Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate".

So when do comments turn from free speech to hate speech? When is something someone says unacceptable, and who decides what speech is and isn't acceptable?

I personally know a number of anarchists who are strong anti-fascists and very anti- hate speech, which superficially seems reasonable. However, in keeping with anarchism and it's non-totalitarian nature, who are we as anarchists to decide what people can and cannot say? In fact, to pressure people or the state into censorship is anti-anarchist by its very nature. The reason is quite simple, to apply censorship is to apply rule over another, which by its definition, totalitarian.

However, what happens when something is said that is totally abhorrent to you as an individual? I've stated that anarchists shouldn't engage in censorship, but what about the State? Is it OK for the Government to engage in censorship? The answer unfortunately, is no. We shouldn't have censorship. For the answer we need only look to Channel nine last night and the "Great Debate". Mr Howard decided he didn't want the worm, and thus the feed to channel nine was cut. Ray Martin was even heard to say during the coverage

"So much for free speech in Australia".

Herein lies the problem; one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Everything is open to personal views, and to give an individual control over the information provided to the general public (censoring) will always be biased. The problem lies in where to draw the line. Drawing the line at hate speech might be acceptable for some, but the thin edge of the wedge is that even mainstream information is then subject to censorship by the whims of the State.

Anarchists more than any other group should advocate free speech (including hate speech) to provide the masses with more accurate information in which they can decide for themselves. Considering the fact that the comments by Professor James Watson are self-evident hate speech, let people decide for themselves. THIS IS ANARCHY!

Hate speech in its most basic form runs parallel with anarchist dogma. If anarchy was to "rule" the country, each person with their own ideas and agenda would be free to speak their mind and subsequently offend (which by it's definition is hate speech).

So the next time someone says something you think is "inappropriate" congratulate them for not being tools of the state. In fact, encouraging free speech in all it's forms, and you'll be encouraging the Anarchist way of life.

References:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/larry_summers_the_thought_poli.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/election_article.aspx?id=307689&sectionid=6046&sectionname=minisiteelection

New Zealand Consulate Protest

The following article was written by Michael Williams, an Anarchist in Geelong. He attended the Aotearoa solidarity protest on Tuesday 16th October 2007 at 11am and has written his report on the event.

Tuesday the 16th saw a group of twenty protestors stand in solidarity against the unjust actions of the New Zealand federal police against a group of New Zealand activists. The protest was held at 11am outside the New Zealand Consulate-General in Melbourne. The protestors included left-wing activists from many different backgrounds, including myself, a more covert Anti-fascist activist. We were graced by the presence of the mainstream media and of course the State Fascists in Victoria Police and two armed Federal Police officers.

On the 15th October in the early morning, up to 17 activists were arrested and charged with Possession of Firearms offences. A number of houses were raided, including activist community houses in Auckland and Wellington. The police have made the claim that those arrested may be involved in guerrilla type training in the mountains of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

In an article by the publication “Crikey,” an Anarchist activist speaks about the raids; http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=899

“As far as I understand it, those who have been charged have been charged with possession of arms and ammunition at some point in the past - ie, they had none of it on them when they were arrested...” “The raids started in Ruatoki at 4am, at the house of well-known Tino Rangatiratanga activist Tame Iti...”

“... there was a knock at my door. I opened it to find four police officers, all in plain-clothes but wearing police vests over the top. One of the officers showed me his ID, at which point I asked him if he had a warrant. He did not reply, and instead asked me if a certain person was in my house. I asked again if he had a warrant, and when he said that they didn’t, I told them to leave the property, and closed the door...”

“I was demanding they leave immediately under the Trespass Act. They refused to leave, and demanded I prove I was the occupier, or else they would stay. My flatmate soon produced our lease form, which I showed them. They wrote down our names, I told them again to leave, and shortly afterwards they did so...”

“I think that just goes to show how ludicrous these trumped up charges are. At the Wellington activist community centre, while police were supposedly searching the house for weapons, they simultaneously had no issue with residents using huge kitchen knives to cut up apples and make apple pie."

Likewise, this morning we have already seen Jamie Lockett, one of the arrestees in Auckland, released on bail [only to then have his bail denied by a higher court]. None of this seems to fit the picture of a dangerous terrorist network! And while the police found no weapons at the Wellington activist community centre, they did confiscate a backpack containing carrots and an avocado!” It seems that the actions by the New Zealand police do not fit in with the severity of the allegations made by both the police and the media. If it was truly believed those arrested were dangerous terrorists plotting armed revolution it would make sense the police would be armed to the teeth during the raids, according to the NZ Anarchist quoted above, the police were armed only with batons... Something is definitely fishy about this!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22601472-23109,00.html

“At a bail hearing for one of the arrested men, Jamie Lockett, prosecutors said he had sent a series of text messages saying he intended to launch a war. The messages, intercepted by police, were said to include "White men are going to die in this country'' and "I'm declaring war on this country very soon".”

Though I do not denounce political activism against the government, if the above quote is true, I must reject and denounce Jamie Lockett for his blatant racism. I believe in the protection of the Maori people in Aotearoa/New Zealand and I am against any oppression against them by the Capitalists in power, Maori activists cannot put the blame on ordinary White workers. The enemy is the government, which includes people of all colours and creeds. I do not want to descend this article in to a rant about racial equality, I'd rather talk about the positive protest I attended on Tuesday...

The protest began at about 11am, with a fellow activist performed a bit of a satire pointed at the New Zealand Suppression of Terrorism Act, the act was very funny and included some volunteers from the audience wearing a variety of military style hats and throwing paper airplanes at the New Zealand Consulate... All very amusing! After the fun we heard speeches from both Sina Davis, a Maori spokesperson in Australia and a very emotional speech by an activist that knew many of the people involved. It is very scary and depressing when loved ones are arrested on unjust charges and held in prison with very little information about their condition released. In all, the protest was very successful and resulted in some media exposure. I'd like to send my good wishes to all those activists in Aotearoa/New Zealand and I hope the court cases result in true justice for everyone involved. We must all stand in solidarity against state oppression and fight for what is right!

What's for dinner? How about our national symbol?

Eating roo could cut greenhouse gas emissions?

A report in the Business Day section of The Age on Thursday, October 11, 2007, suggests that substituting 20% traditional beef with kangaroo meat could help cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 tonnes per annum.

I've often suggested to people that eating our national symbols would be far better environmentally than eating traditional beef, so this Greenpeace report by Dr Mark Diesendorf comes as no surprise to me.

Firstly, why import and breed animals for food when there is a native species capable of supporting the populations food needs? Secondly, kangaroos are culled in the thousands due to their plague numbers invading farm land. What a waste! Western Australia has started exporting Kangaroo meat, but the industry should think about subsidising the current beef farming industry (in terms of food production rather than their current "delicacy status"). Kangaroos require far less water and are adapted to the harsh Australian climate. Traditional livestock damage river beds when drinking, ruin topsoil through compression with their hooves, and produce high quantities of methane gas (the average cow produces 600L methane a DAY!). Kangaroos being native have a much smaller ecological footprint.

"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians" In fact, Michael Archer Head of the Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW states that "farmers can get filthy stinking rich killing kangaroos".

Although there is still debate about the ability to farm kangaroos, including the amount of meat viable from an animal, and the expense due to fencing costs, it's time to start thinking outside the square. The CSIRO needs to invest more research into the viability of kangaroo farming in the interests of finding a sustainable food source in a country with severe water restrictions and a burgeoning population.

References;
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/energy/?p=90
http://www.awpc.org.au/newsite/archive/competition.html
http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM
http://www.greenhouse.crc.org.au/greenhouse_in_agriculture/methane.cfm

Google; Don't be evil

Googles censorship of the Internet through its biased search engine pagerank is undemocratic, but did we really expect any differently?

Google is well known for its censorship in China, which seems to contradict the very principles that Google - whose unofficial motto "don’t be evil" - was founded upon. The "don't be evil" principle, recognises that Google holds great power over the information the public relies on, and their fiduciary duty to uphold the public trust by refusing payments that would influence the information they provide to users.

Until January 2006, Google's Support Centre claimed that it "does not censor results for any search term", but removed this claim after reaching its deal with China. Which just goes to show that Google uses the "don't be evil" principle as a propaganda campaign to convince the masses that they aren't an evil malevolent corporation. However, there is evidence prior to the Chinese censorship 2006, which can be found in Europe.

On October 22, 2002, a study reported that approximately 113 Internet sites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google, who were complying with local laws by not including sites containing certain material in its search results.

In Australia on September 20, 2007 at 9:58am, the Australian Government tabled new legislation where ISPs will be required to "take reasonable steps" to prevent users accessing websites or content, by expanding the URL "black list".

The laws will, can and do extend to Google and their operation in Australia.

Googles search engine works using a "PageRank" system, wherby the more links to a website the higher it is ranked. This is undemocratic because the E-commerce people have recognized the direct correlation between high rank of their site, and more sales. Google also has a spider system that scoures the internet to add new web sites to its search criterea. However, deletion of critical sites from Google search results is decided by individual human beings according to company policy. Effectively google will target its search results based on the originating computer IP, making the results region specific.

You will notice when "googling" in Australia, the search engine automatically registers google.com.au after hitting the search button. I found that after using google without a proxy server, NO result came upon this blog, however, after going through a U.S proxy, I was able top the list for anarchy down under. Here are the images:

Image 1: "Anarchy down under" not on any search page through Australian IP address

Image 2: "Anarchy Down under" top of list using proxy through U.S IP address

The following is taken from a Google Censorship FAQ:
Is Google transparent about their censorship?Google discloses what they censor when you hit on a specific search result (they didn’t always do this, but they regularly do since 2006). However, Google Inc does not respond to questions regarding how specifically they censor, how the process of censorship is implemented, which blacklists they use , which words are censored, which specific discussions they have with governments, and so on. Additionally, making censorship more transparent helps defeat its original purpose of hiding information, so it gives less incentive to governments to try impose such censorship regulations.

And there it is. Google uses blacklists and their search engines are region specific.

One way to get around this pagerank system and any of their blacklisting is to manually go and add your blog to as many directories as possible. The directories themselves cannot be blacklisted, thus, by adding your URL with enough tags (description), they will appear under a google search engine, regardless of regional filters.

Image 3: after adding this blog to the following directories:

Technorati, Bloggernity, Bloghub, Blog Rankings and Blogarama.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don

http://www.anonproxy.ca/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5hdXN0cmFsaWFuaXQubmV3cy5jb20uYXUvc3RvcnkvMCwyNDg5NywyMjQ1MTUyMi0xNTMwNiwwMC5odG1s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/internet-110506-action-eng http://sethf.com/infothought/log/archives/001027.html

http://www.google-watch.org/

The war is won with the propaganda

Psychological Warfare: The use of propaganda or other psychological means to influence or confuse the thinking, undermine the morale, of an enemy or opponent.

Mind control is referred to as coercive persuasion, effectively; restraining, impairing, or compelling through the gradual application of PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES. I thought it relevant to discuss mind control and propaganda after discussing with a colleague of mine about the protest on Sept 26. He informed me that he disagreed with protesting the workchoice laws as he believed it to be appropriate to dismiss someone if they were not a cultural fit. At this point I reminded him that his wife, had lost 3 jobs in 6 months with no redundancy package nor any notice, the psychological impact, the stress and loss of confidence in having these things happen to her, and how these workchoices laws were the cause. This didn't seem to make any difference, he still agreed with the laws.

In one foul swoop my colleague had dismissed his wife's suffering, his concomitant suffering, and yet still wholeheartedly told me that the laws were still a good idea.

What astounds me here was my colleagues inability to connect the politics of the Australian Government and the experience endured by himself and his wife, rather to treat it all as abstract. John Howard's minister for propaganda deserves an oscar. Wars are not won on the battlefield, they are won in the minds of the people.

TACTIC 1. The individual is prepared for thought reform through increased suggestibility and/or "softening up,". Mind control through repetition; my favourite example is through advertising. When watching T.V, we're in a relaxed and open state, ready for subliminal messaging.

TACTIC 2. Using rewards and punishments, efforts are made to establish considerable control over a person's social environment, time, and sources of social support. See previous post on "Culture of the organisation".

TACTIC 3. Disconfirming information and nonsupporting opinions are prohibited in group communication. See previous post on "The individual or the Organisational Culture". This tactic is reinforced through non-physical punishments. Whatever you do, don't talk about politics and religion, keep it to infotainment and weather.

TACTIC 4. Frequent and intense attempts are made to cause a person to re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Cults do this all the time, it is the use of guilt to control and manipulate. Mothers do it best.

TACTIC 5. Intense and frequent attempts are made to undermine a person's confidence in himself and his judgment, creating a sense of powerlessness. The Government does this with their two party system, so don't bother voting for a minor party, it makes no difference. In fact, go and jump off a bridge because you have no real impact in the world because you're not a celebrity. Oh, and the only thing you should really be preoccupied with is sex, your appearance and what Britney is up to.

Still not convinced that there's a targeted campaign to control your brain? Couldn't happen to you eh? Here's a quick test: Are you satisfied with the current state of the world? No? Doing anything about it? No? Well, that's mind control in action,- APATHY! Makes you feel hopeless, there's no point in trying, so why not just live YOUR life, don't worry about anyone else, just do what's good for you.

For anyone who is game enough to go on and watch the next video, it's actually very disturbing. Some of the mind control experiments conducted on animals are rather unpleasant. You've been warned.

So, what's the point of all of these things? Don't take my word for it, from the mouth of George Bush Snr himself:

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and future generations a new world order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible united nations can use it's peacekeeping role to fufill the promise and vision of the
U.N's founders.

References:
My stupid colleague
http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm