At the end of May the British press was filled with stories headlined “Gaddafi to be told to stand down or face Apache attack.” As of this writing, the Apaches have attacked, but Gaddafi has not stood down.
The Apache threat is a case study in the sterile but financially lucrative marriage of coercive diplomacy to surgical strikes by precision guided weapons. What passes for a war strategy in Libya is now a comic opera starring NATO as an understrength, self-referencing techno bully, who acts as if he is now so fearsome that he does not even need a carrot to go with his stick.
There is a growing movement towards peer-to-peer value exchange and production, prompted by a variety of things, like economic conditions, shifting cultural values, exploration into collective intelligence, and further enabled by social technologies.
I've been tracking the online marketplaces that have been cropping up for sharing, swapping, gifting and renting, as well as sites that give people different kinds of opportunity to share skills and knowledge, innovate, and work collaboratively both on and offline. Below are a few sites I've come across, please add any I've missed.
An embedded reporter snaps war footage. The U.S. military-industrial complex and media work together to propagate the agenda of government.
NATO’s decision to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds has become an alarming and revealing assessment of America’s understanding of war. The way the “established” media portrayed the Libyan conflict, and its subsequent reception, illustrates our society’s failure to recognize how the power dynamics of plutocratic governance shape our realities. There is significant historical evidence that during times of war propaganda is used to justify military action for special interests. If we are to believe the theme of “change” will define our generation, we must pierce through both the media and the government’s rationalization of war.
I have found the established media’s reporting on Libya to be lacking in depth and consideration of an alternative to military intervention. This is not unusual. History repeatedly shows that during times of war, the established media have a tendency to mislead, deceive, and (in some instances) fabricate to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. This is shown through the writings of Carl Bernstein, the Nayirah testimony, the treatment of former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and the beginning of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Essentially, the media has been used to facilitate consent, not dissent.
Given the assumption that we learn from history, our passive acceptance of such reporting is surprising. In 1758, author Samuel Johnson wrote, “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.” Later, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the emerging military-industrial complex, which we learned has a tradition of lying in addition to tremendous governmental influence. If the military has to go to such lengths for approval, it is clearly not what we naturally desire. Thus, why has there not been more widespread skepticism and objection with regard to Libya?
Led by the U.S., NATO used reports of imminent danger to civilians as justification for humanitarian intervention. Yet, history shows that there is a good reason to approach this explanation with skepticism. In fact, it was recently reported that President Barack Obama exaggerated the humanitarian threat. Once we consider issues such as who the Libyan rebels are and what role oil, banking, previous planning, and geopolitics play in the situation, it seems that history is repeating itself.
The question for our generation becomes: At what point do we categorically reject war and its mechanisms from the beginning rather than in retrospect? We can do this by repudiating all war. We must reject the seemingly righteous theory of humanitarian intervention because it is divorced from how social conflicts actually arise and are resolved. The idea that bombing — an indiscriminate killing method the U.S. has become notoriously inaccurate at — can improve a situation is untenable. The most recent example is Kosovo; it was the nonviolent movement that ultimately resolved the conflict. Moreover, what right does any country have to determine the affairs of another country? This is the same expression of moral superiority used to justify imperialism.
If we want to live in a world of peace, we must learn from our history and see that war is an unnatural phenomenon; we need to reject it on a philosophical and spiritual level. Removing war from our conscience creates space for dialogue and diplomacy, and brings us closer to a shared utopia.
Was born in Kingston, Jamaica, raised in Atlanta, Georgia, attended high school in Torino, Italy, obtained a history degree from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and is currently a Juris Doctorate candidate at the University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law. Coy's primary interests are stimulating our natural impulse to collaborate with one another, exploring and deepening our collective consciousness, and building small-scale, sustainable communities where appreciation of the environment, and our role within it, is deeply embedded within the culture. For more, check out the website: http://www.everythingology.com
Phi Beta Iota: Standard elite distortions of reality occur through Forbidden Knowledge, Rule by Secrecy, Lost History, Manufacturing Consent, Propaganda, Weapons of Mass Deception, Fog Facts, and Missing information, among others. All of these terms are titles of books. Information Forensics, and Public Intelligence in the Public Interest, are the antidotes.
But they still cannot distinguish between a person taking a dump and one planting a bomb…..technology does not win wars. This does not improve the analytical ability of the force.
Phi Beta Iota: It also perpetuates the twin evils of spending money we don't have to kill, maim, and anger people who have nothing to do with anything that matters to the US public. The BEST use of micro-drones is to provide eyes and ears for the infantry. The WORST use of armed drones is to give the power to kill to someone remote from reality with no ethical grounding. As we now know, bandwidth is more expensive than a human pilot, who also comes with situational awareness.
CNN has evidently become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US Department of Defense (which has militarized the wimpish Department of State), much like BBC is a largely-owned subsidiary of the CIA. Today CNN is “selling,” with a straight face, absolute garbage to the effect that Iran considers Syria a satellite state and is “actively” engaged in advising and supplying the armed crack-down on dissidents. On the fringes there is no doubt slight evidence of Iranian concern, but this massive lie to the public leaves out several facts:
1) 85% or so of Syria is populated by Sunnis who hate Shi'ites and dictators–whether secular or theocratic–more than the hate the USA.
Click on Image to Enlarge
2) Assad not only owns the guns, they were made in the USA and he has received strong support from the USA and Israel for decades, while also supporting with rendition and torture the fraudulent USA “war on terror.”
3) This is a revolution for dignity and liberty, not necessarily for democracy, but most assuredly not in any way associated with nor justifying undermining in relation to the “war on terror. General Clark has told us the military-industrial complex, which is now out of control and unresponsive to White House or Congressional direction, plans to take out seven countries in five years. The insane, costly, unconstitutional, and criminal plan was actually laid out in a book, Endgame–The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. What is being done “in our name” lacks intelligence and integrity and is well over the line toward crimes against humanity that should be confronted and stopped. War is not the solution; US troops out of Afghanistan and into Libya and Syria and Iran is not the solution. It will make matters worse.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Phi Beta Iota: Turkey, Iran, and Egypt are the center of gravity for a non-violent and mature campaign to stabilize and reconstruct the Middle East. The US will not be part of the solution as long as it allows the military-industrial complex to jump in, and as long as the Department of State is as inept and uninformed as it is. The US Government lacks intelligence and integrity. It is time for the public to act on the wisdom of Norman Cousins:
Government is not built to perceive great truths; only people can perceive great truths. Governments specialize in small and intermediate truths. They have to be instructed by their people in great truths. And the particular truth in which they need instruction today is that new means for meeting the largest problems of the world have to be created.
We reiterate our faith in the importance of the Assisi Inter-Faith Summit, and our coincident concern that the Catholic Church hierarchy is blowing off the importance of intelligence with integrity. Our views and related context are at: Event: 26 Oct 2011 Assisi Italy Pope, Peace, & Prayer — 5th Inter-Faith Event Since 1986 — Terms of Reference…. The Sunni-Shi-ite schism is matched by the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. Secular corruption and a lack of intelligence with integrity among governments and corporations is in our view the “root” problem that the inter-faith summit must acknowledge and address. A commitment by the faiths to non-violent truth & reoconciliation, with a global focus on transparency for truth and trust as an outcome, is the next “big step” for mankind.
Goodbye two-Party system? Discontent is building to open up the political process
NEW YORK NEWSDAY THE SUNDAY SPECIAL
October 31, 2010
Name a problem — poverty, war, out-of-control spending. The political parties offer themselves as the solution to all of the above, and more. We respond by voting for first one party, then the other, then back again. We want to let the world know we are unhappy, but we haven’t yet developed the creative capacity to rearrange the world around us.
This seemingly eternal passivity is the mother’s milk of political partyism. No wonder the Republicans and Democrats and their auxiliaries — the tea parties, the unions, the media — must whip us into a frenzy. Whether we are Foxites, MSNBCists, bloggers or bored stiff, we’re now implored daily to get out to vote. Why? Not because voting develops our capacity to move the country forward. But because we must put one, or the other, or both, political parties in power — even though separately and together, they brought us to this anxious and crummy place.
Phi Beta Iota: Jacqueline Salit is a force in America, and she has access to Michael Bloomberg. They both made a mistake in spending money on apparatchiks who created the NO LABELS “movement” that would be a monstrocity but for the fact that it is so pathetically “wag the puppy” one can only laugh. She herself is authentic, and there is no denying the fact that 43% or more voters now consider themselves Independent, and over 83% told an informal Wall Street Journal poll they are ready to vote for a third party President. All that is missing now is a Presidential candidate from a third party that can make Seven Promises to America.
