TrapWire- The Panopticon

posted by Erik

Its no surprise the surveillance end of 1984 would come, it was just a question of when, not if.

Wikileaks provided us with the information on this "conspiracy." Its called "TrapWire."

There are claims being made on both sides of the spectrum about TrapWire: some are saying its not all that good at doing what its supposed to do and won't be used for ignoble ends, while others are claiming its the end, or end of the world.

I think the NSA's warrantless tapping, The Patriot Act, The NDAA, iWatch, and the National Suspicious Activity Reporting (NSI) Initiative are bigger "problems" for liberty, but TrapWire is a similar spoke in the wheel, or perhaps the hub, of the inflating intrusive State.

Wikileaks and mirrored sites were off-line again by Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. The recent leaks about TrapWire perhaps at the  root of this, but maybe not.

If government omniscience is permissible, then so too should public omniscience be permissible, i.e. the reversing of the Panopticon-- the ability to ask questions..."open government." Of course the latter portion of this "balance" is not the case, in the name of "National Security" SAR-related records "are exempt from the access and correction provisions of the Privacy Act." The check (on you) is there, the balance is not. What's new? My problem is, if I do not "consent" to be governed where is my exception, or exemption, of being ruled/governed, including the right to evade spying. It doesn't exist, consent or not, our freedom is an illusion, its apparent. I can say, "I am my own state; I ask nothing of you, and I will concede you nothing. I am a man; I am my own sovereign, and you have no authority over me but by my consent. That consent I have never given; or if I have heretofore given it, I now withdraw it. You have, then, no right over me, and if you attempt to control me you are a tyrant." (Orestes Augustus Brownson Democracy and Liberty) Of course saying this means nothing, because its apparent where the tyranny comes from, and resistance to its power is futile.

I feel rather insecure knowing the power lies in hands that are not mine. This is my basic beef with States...power. Pierre Proudhon nailed it when he said, "Liberty is not the daughter, but the mother of Order." The State continuously/repeatedly nails liberty to the cross, insisting Order begets liberty, and claiming we are free as long as we Obey, "under" their authority. That's not liberty, its death. In other words, to quote George Orwell, the State is "a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

 more info:

• http://publicintelligence.net/unravelling-trapwire/
• http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/trapwire-strafor-biz/all/ 
• http://gawker.com/5934302/everything-you-need-to-know-about-trapwire-the-surveillance-system-everyone-is-freaking-out-about 
• http://www.salon.com/2012/08/10/biggest_story_you_missed_7/singleton/ 
• http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/10/creepy-spying-system-revealed-by-wikilea
• http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/12635-trapwires-alleged-corporate-and-government-connections-grow
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/are-we-safer/suspicious-activity/

The Party State

This is actually a re-post/mirror from Rad Geek (Charles Johnson), a favorite blog(ger) of mine, noted in the Blog Roll to the right--> (but it should be on the left)

Remember that so-called electoral democracy — in fact, nothing more than an imperial elective oligarchy — never means that we (meaning you and I and our neighbors) are respected as sovereign individuals or left alone to manage our own affairs. What it means is that a highly organized, heavily armed elite insists on the privilege of representing us, ruling over us, and ordering us around, on the excuse that, once every several years, we are given some minimal opportunity to select which of two tightly regimented political parties will take control of the ruling apparatus. It is, in other words, not freedom, but rather a Party State, in which we are given only the choice of which of two bureaucratic political parties might control our lives and livelihoods, with their authority supposedly justified by the ritual of elections and the mandate of popular sovereignty. And if the people (again, meaning you and I and our neighbors) should dare to think that we might challenge the authority of the regime supposedly representing us, you’ll find that it’s the people that go out the window, not the rigged electoral system or the parties’ grasp on the authority supposedly derived from those people.
— ^from:  GT 2008-09-03: This is what a police state looks like (part 1 of ???)
—^recounted in an update here: show-me-what-a-police-state-looks-like-2012

"It is absolute folly to believe that multi-billion dollar corporate-financier interests would subject their collective fate to the whims of the ignorant, uninformed, and essentially powerless voting masses every four years. Instead, what plays out every four years is theater designed to give the general public the illusion that they have some means of addressing their grievances without actually ever changing the prevailing balance of power in any meaningful way." us-elections-obamney-vs-rombama

Greydon Relief

posted by Erik

At some point today I clicked on a news link about censorship in India, which eventually led me to You Tube, which eventually led me to GenerationXeroFilms ten clicks later, and then a few more and I found Greydon Square! I haven't been this excited about rap music since Public Enemy. Thanks Greydon!

sample:

^This is older, but representative of his work. Looks like he is still active and releasing a new album in 2012 (below is a cut):

And I thought hip-hop was nearly dead. This gives it new life imo, and a whole new level not traveled by most, making it all that much better.

Pussy Riot Hypocrite

What politician isn't a hypocrite?

White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the two-year prison sentence a Russian judge imposed on members of the punk band Pussy Riot, "disproportionate." They were found guilty of "hooliganism" for mocking Russian President Vladimir Putin. " He continued, "While we understand the group's behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way these young women have been treated by the "Russian judicial system..."

Apple to orange hypocrisy? Maybe this is a stretch, but Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), do you think Obama really thinks the Pussy Riot verdict was "disproportionate"? Chris Hedges breaks it down here: criminalizing dissent

This section [1021 ] of the NDAA, signed into law by Obama on Dec. 31, 2011, obliterates some of our most important constitutional protections. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to seize U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists or associated with terrorists. Those taken into custody by the military, which becomes under the NDAA a domestic law enforcement agency, can be denied due process and habeas corpus and held indefinitely in military facilities. Any activist or dissident, whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, can be threatened under this law with indefinite incarceration in military prisons, including our offshore penal colonies. The very name of the law itself—the Homeland Battlefield Bill—suggests the totalitarian credo of endless war waged against enemies within "the homeland" as well as those abroad.

"The essential thrust of the NDAA is to create a system of justice that violates the separation of powers," Mayer told the court. "[The Obama administration has] taken detention out of the judicial branch and put it under the executive branch."

The Brave New 1984 continues to unfold, surprise, surprise. Anyone know where I can find the closest Ecuadorian Embassy?

Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, and Tom Morello

posted by Erik

They are all in the news today because Paul Ryan is rightly being linked to Ayn Rand, and Ryan said he liked Rage Against the Machine. Morello made this comment: "I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage...Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23uoR30pX

Ayn Rand wanted to separate State and economics, as the church is separated from State. I admire this, but would take it a step further, and dismantle the State. In the end, she was a minarchist (if not an individualist anarchist if her logic was followed consistently). If Paul Ryan is a "Randite" then its odd that he is in politics at all, but I suppose he's their to be the vanguard, and dismantle the State up to a point.

This is an age old debate: individualism, or collectivism, or some mix of both? Should 1) people use the state to their end or 2) skip the use of the state all together. Within the first option we have everyone from Jefferson, to Marx, to Lenin, to Pol-Pot..., not to mention Royalty. Within the second option we have Benjamin Tucker, to Kropotkin, to Bakunin, to Rocker... One option thinks the state is needed, the other that the state will ultimately become a tool. Apparently up to this point in time, the latter group is not mistaken.

Rand basically thought humans savage, if not incorrigible, or on the other end of the spectrum, and this end should be the vanguard running the State to protect property, or all citizens would have to be armed. I'm one to think that most people are dumb, or inhumane, as noted in an earlier post in summarizing the Chik Fil A ordeal, but deep down I think human nature is good, and the bad are "outliers" in the 'bell-curve' of human action. If Rand thinks the opposite, then why let anyone amass power in the form of a government, as there is a risk of 'savages' in suits protecting us, settling disputes, enforcing taxes, and contracts. Further, if she is claiming individual sovereignty as the key to liberty, like Locke, then how is a state  possible, even if its a form of popular sovereignty? In this regard, she is like Marx, Hegel, and Hobbes, Statist, and outside of real libertarianism, i.e. libertarian socialism. Though the Lib-Party pledge is the Non-Aggression Principle, the idea that they are even involved in state politics begs the question.

Rand, like Locke, defended the "consent theory of government." Yet as many, including Hume, Josiah Tucker, and Bentham (panoticon), pointed out, the consent theory destroys government. Further, the only way government keeps it power, or sovereignty over individuals,  is via taxation-- no consent allowed here, just aggression. Another problem is monopoly, and hypocrisy. If justice is objective, how can a government decree it is just to carry out certain actions, and forbid all others from doing the same? Sovereignty is freedom, and its all or none. Unless of course you believe in popular sovereignty, but to me this is an oxymoron.

Whether Rand, Ryan, or Morello (frequently sporting an IWW hat) has the right plan to reach individual sovereignty is questionable, but it is the ability to question and succeed in resistance that matters-- the theory of sovereignty over absolutist "machines" of power. I think only Morello gets this, or wants it. I'm doubting Ryan Paul does, and likewise Rand believed in the necessity of the machine, though small.

The closer we can get to individual sovereignty and voluntary institutions the better, in my opinion. Morello has one idea on how to get it started on his head: "Take the power back" IWW style, with Rudolf Rocker-like syndicalism. I understand this line, but it scares me because power and hierarchy are the machine, the state, the enemy of sovereignty or liberty. I prefer to get there as an individualist, not a collectivist, but realize that there is room at the table for both, and think that's how it will work (not should work) as long as a State is not allowed at the table.

"Liberty is the not the daughter, but the mother of order." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Sonstroke video

posted by Erik

just wrapped up a video for Sonstroke

speaks fo' itself

A big thanks to Ben (http://www.youtube.com/user/hessianben) for coming out to Irvine to film us play.

No sooner than this was posted I caught wind of the murder of seven Sikhs in Wisconsin. As I write this, it's not known what the motive was other than tattoos that appear to point to "political" motives. In turn, the event is being treated as "terrorism" because it may have had political and/or social objectives. Sonstroke references fundamentalism, of the religious sort, and in particular the violent and controlling types. The degrees of control vary, and there are plenty of fundamentalists that are not violent, or religious for that matter.

Thinking about this attack, I'd paint any philosophy that leads to violence as fundamentalism, as it seems expressing ideas to the point of aggression says: “I know The Truth, I own The Truth, and I own non-believers.”  This expression via aggression is indeed non-sense. 

One idea I wish more people held fundamentally, if anything, is the belief in the worth of a good NAP (non-aggression principle). I'm guessing this recent attack on Sikhs was by a racist that hadn’t slept on the sense of his ideas. Obviously, he thought he was right, but perhaps he didn't look for evidence to the contrary (or believe it), in other words, he was a fundamentalist. It’s not the first time a fundamentalist has killed and beaten Sikhs and "others," and sadly it won’t be the last.

Eat Mor Freedum

posted by Erik

It was hard to ignore the Chik-fil-A hype this past week. So was the logic, or lack thereof.

Some common arguments on comment threads were:

1. this is a "free speech" issue
2. stop whining
3. marriage is between a man and a woman
4. we need to "take our country back"
5. "if you don't like it you can leave"
6. random stuff about the intentions of a god

Its hard for me to even begin, because I'm prejudice, I'm a libertarian (not in the lib-party sense). So at its core both sides are off-base in this debate, let people do and say what they want, but the caveat is "keep your mitts off others."

So with that in mind, people can whine, people can support hate groups, and pro/anti-rights groups, but the money should stop there. Keep the state out of my business, keep your nose out of my business, let people do what they want, again the caveat being "keep your mitts off others." However, back to reality, not my utopia, Chik-fil-A supports groups that want state involvement, and legislative policy to restrict freedoms, not grow them. Beyond my utter disgust in the very idea of a state, or money in politics for that matter, I have to side with neither. Both sides are arguing that the other is restricting freedom, but in the act of arguing they are looking right past freedom, and arguing that the other side's freedom should be restricted...sorta.

1. so what if it is-- and corporations are people now too right?
2. everyone is whining
3. whatever-- circular reasoning squabbles about definitions are pointless
4. how does "our" become "your" by the way?
5. see #4. and leave "me" alone
6. see video below

Marriage is "supported" by making your marriage work with your spouse, and keeping your nose out of the business of other people's marriage. When you interfere with other people's right to support each other in marriage, you have crossed the line of hypocrisy. What bothers me, is why the state even recognizes marriage, and gives perks for marriage (or kids) period; to me this is state-sanctioned prejudice, but again I'm not for states to begin with so my opinion doesn't count, and I should take my mitts and "leave."

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

Damn, now if I could just erect that wall on all sides of the state to make it irrelevant, this whole freakin' debate would not have occurred, but as it stands, both sides are outside the wall trying to get in. They want in so they can make the state into themselves and what they think is right; they want to get their mitts into other people's business in the name of freedom because they are the vanguard that knows what's best for you.



To change gears and stay on topic, did I mention that I like science, as it pretty much flies in the face of idiocracy:
6.

To move father off topic, but perhaps to the bottom of all this...I have to wonder about the morality or ethical mind-set of a person that participates in factory farming, and the suffering and death of millions. Sure, he gets paid for this, and that could be reason enough to do it, but there's gotta be some disconnect in Samuel Truett Cathy's mind. Of course there is a slim chance he hasn't seen the suffering, or the massive piles of waste. Maybe he hasn't considered the resources used for feed as wasteful either. Is he heartless, blind, dumb, or just a business man after money in-spite of the repercussions? I'm guessing all the above, as he seems to view some people as less than human, like chickens, and is willing to spend money to make them suffer inhumane conditions. He has values, but what are they worth? Beyond the debate and rights issues, what I really care about are the chickens, as I've written most humans off as insufferable primitive barbarians capable of better, but somehow one egg short.

Gore Vidal, Alexander Cockburn, Tony Sly

posted by Erik

A part of me died when Howard Zinn died last year. He was especially important to me because he was a libertarian socialist, or "an anarchist" as he said at one time. It was nice to have such an important figure feel somewhat mutual about 'political economy.'

Now Gore Vidal is gone, and Alexander Cockburn (coe-burn) as well. I really liked reading Cockburn's Counterpunch. Though neither were strict "Liberatarians" per se, they certainly spoke truth to power, and with an uncommon 'radical' air and eloquence. Like most people they said a few off-base things in their lives, but  there was plenty to admire and learn from both of them.

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." Gore Vidal

And last, but not least, Tony Sly of No Use for a Name died. I remember in 1995 when I broke my neck and laid in the hospital thinking about the NUFAN cd that was coming in the mail. I asked my parents if it had arrived, as I had been waiting a week or two already when my accident occurred. They showed up one day with the package and my cd player. It made me feel better. Farewell Tony...

I often wonder who will replace special people like these, and I'm sure this sentiment is shared by many. No one of course, but others will come, and now they have standards to meet set by those who preceded, so in this sense I look forward to their pseudo-replacements or comrades in action and intellect.

I think this speaks for Zinn, Vidal, And Cockburn:

New EP, New Site, New Blog

We'll finally be going back into the studio to record! September of 2012!

Expect an EP first, maybe 5 songs, then a full-length a few months later mid-2013. We're excited to be recording with Chris Rakestraw!

We just rebuilt our web site starting July 2012. We'll be adding more features, so stay tuned!