Los Angeles Anarchist Bookfair meeting raided by LAPD

Last night (Monday 17 November) the Revolutionary Autonomous Communities fundraiser for the Anarchist Bookfair at the food not bombs warehouse on 6th and Santa Fe was raided by the LAPD. They kicked open the door and unlawfully entered in to the private space.

Joaquin Cienfuegos, a member of RAC and Copwatch LA Guerrilla chapter was targeted by the police and pulled out from the space. When folks inside the space heard what was going on in front they went over to observe and document what was going on. Joaquin asked why he was being detained and they told him to "Shut up" and "Do as he's told". He was handcuffed and searched without his permission. While he was being searched Joaquin stated loud and clear that he did not consent to their search and once again asked to please be told why he was being detained.

While i was at the door way observing what they were doing to the comrade outside i could see the the street was blocked off and there were about 12 police cars on 6th street and about 30 or more Deputies/Depupigs. As we tried to get cameras to document what was going on the police rushed the door again and i was pulled outside by 4 police officers. They pushed me against the wall and made me place my hands on top of my head and searched me. I asked the Officer why i was being detained and he said, "A crime had been committed a few blocks away and they were going to bring the victim to identify the person."

As i was pulled out, the folks inside closed the door to prevent the rush of pigs into the property. They began to kick the door and yell at the folks inside to get out. Not once did they announce themselves as the Police Department or why they were there or wanted folks to exit the show. Police officers were outside making joke;" Do you smell that? i think its weed, we should go inside and find out", and "This is some kind of illegal rave or show or what do we call it?". Clearly unable to choose a reason why they were trying to raid the space they made up whatever we want.

After i had been searched, a female officer came over and i asked once again why i was being detained. She stated that this was an illegal gathering and they wanted to figure it all out. Officers were walking all over the front in very confused manner having to be told by other officers to move out of the way. I could see the shadows on the officers behind me and Joaquin who continued to hold their hands on their weapons while we were handcuffed with our hands behind our backs.

After the police ignored the request by the owner of the space to present a search warrant or leave the private property, the comrades from the Black Liberation Party that were there in part to perform for the fundraiser exited the building and were immediately detained and sister Nadia and Kambui were placed in handcuffs and the rest of the the Black Riders where made to face the wall. The police then rushed inside and pulled everyone out. They had us right in front of the space and then made me walk down the blocked as they lined everyone up against the wall. They pull more than 60 people out from the space and had them with their hands against their back facing the wall. They separted the women from the men and began to search everyone.

A police officer that searched me came and asked for my ID. They said they were going to check me for warrants or any priors. He pulled out my ID and pulled out a card that he began to fill in with all my personal information. I asked what that card was for but i was not given an answer. My ID was returned but the card with my information was kept by them.

After they searched everyone's belongings they lined up all the males and females and said that this was going to be a line-up and they were going to bring the the victim of the crime to identify the perpetrator. When asked what crime (had been committed) an officer told another brother that they had had a crime committed a few blocks away and some beer was stolen from a liquor store. When asked why so many officers where there for stolen beer the officer said, "He didnt know", that they just felt that whoever committed the crime was in the space.

A police helicopter was circling and made the announcement after everyone was removed that they were the LAPD. 2 folks from Food Not Bombs who were in the premise were pulled out and placed in handcuffs.

A police car with 2 Officers in the front and a woman in the back seat drove by slowly. The officers proceeded to tell people to look into the light and not look at the car. Everyone said they couldn't look at the light because it hurt their eyes but the officers from inside continued to shine the light into people's eyes. As this was going on, officers continued to line up and make jokes about "overtime" and the way different folks were dressed. For one officer in particular he lamented his rookie friend, "was off tonight because he would have loved to have been a part of this!" As the police car made its way down the street they stopped and singled out one youth . He was immediately arrested. They drove back again slowly and continued to point the light in people's face. My handcuffs were removed but i was not allowed to leave. i was made to remain facing the fence with my hands behind my back.

After a police officer from some other car came with a pience of paper and pointed to Nadia and Kambui from the black Riders Liberation Part and said they were being detained for "148"- interfering with a police officer. When people asked why they were being detained or singled out police officers told them to shut up. They placed them both in cuffs and removed all their belongings and put them into plastic bags. They were then placed into the backseat of a police car.

Another police officer came and then annonced that the party was over and people needed to leave. People still had equipment inside and were made to line up and escorted inside to get thier belongings. While inside i noticed that money from the fundraiser was missing and according to folks inside the money was there before the police ran inside to pull everyone out. We got out all the groups' equipment and waited for someone to come close the space. They continued to harass people and tried to intimidate many of the youth to leave and to learn their lesson. Besides the one youth that was arrested for supposedly stealing beer, everyone was arrested for interfering with a police officer when all they asked was why they were being detained.

The officers were congragulating themselves and laughing at everyone. Many of the officers were staring down many of the sisters that were there and making sexist jokes about he'd rather be home with his wife than here. Then he proceeded to make a hand gesture to 2 sisters who were standing near by. No one but the other officers were amused by these pigs but they continued to talk shit and tell people to leave. The majority officers left smiling and staring at folks in attempts to instigate some incident to lead to further arrest.

While we were waiting the final officer drove by and rolled down his window. He stated" Im sorry we had to shut down your party but you have to keep the youngsters in check and can't be letting them go anywhere stealing beer. If they hadn't stolen the beer we wouldnt have canceled your show"
Everyone was pissed as this provacateur behavior which is being utilized as the excuse to enter into private property and raid a peaceful gathering. The police looked for whatever excuse to shut the show down.

Joaquin is currently being held for misdemeanor . He has not been taken to jail and is still being held by Central Division. He will probably be going to court tomorrow or Wednesday. Please spread the word.Help support Joaquin and the Black Riders Liberation Party and Food Not Bombs folks to get out.

This is a quick report trying to include as many of the important details as possible but i'm sure i might have overlooked other important details from last night that other folks who were also there can maybe share and i will try and write more about last night later tonight and will follow up with more details.

Free ALL Political Prisoners.Organize Organize Organize
Related Link: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2008/11/222328.php

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/10693

Brown People Did Not Pass Prop. 8

I find it curious that African-American women are all lazy unwed welfare-cheating baby-making machines and African-American men are all violent drug-abusing absentee fathers RIGHT UNTIL they are standing in the way of gay rights, at which point they become socially conservative homophobes who can’t see past their religious family values. If you’re going to scapegoat people of color for all the world’s problems, at least make your stereotypes consistent, ya know? C’mon.

First of all, as other people have amply demonstrated, Prop 8 was not lost by people of color, despite what Dan Savage and a whole lot of other people think.

Propositioning Privilege: The reality is that white people are not being blamed as a racial group for the loss because of the sense that queer=white and there is no racial investment that would benefit from an argument that pathologized whiteness as inherently homophobic in the way that white privilege benefits from pathologizing blackness this way. This is a great, comprehensive look at how both sides of the Prop 8 campaign were handled.

And as bias_cut shows, if it weren’t for people of color most of the gay marriage bans still would have passed and McCain would have won the election in a landslide.

Even acknowledging this, I don’t think it excuses the way No-on-8 campaign was run. I don’t live in California, so I can’t really speak to this outside of what I’ve seen on the internet, but I do want to say a few things about white Left movements, including but not limited to white queer movements, and how they (try to, sort of) do alliances with people of color. This has been brewing for me for a while now; it’s not a new problem and I know other people reading this have thought about many of these things so forgive me if it comes off as repetitious or preaching to the choir. I think it still needs to be addressed.

1. Think about how you use civil rights imagery. There are parallels there, and they should be drawn, but to compare the passing of Prop 8 with lynching and Jim Crow disrespects Black history. Even the Loving decision, which is the most obvious parallel (and one Mildred Loving herself endorsed) had a profoundly different history than the history of gays and lesbians. Angry Black Woman discusses the background on that decision and how it was frankly not a huge priority during the civil rights era: So I have to wonder why the No on 8 people chose to present this as a parallel of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. To my mind, this helped trivialize their desire to marry, particularly among older blacks who remember when being able to marry white people was the least of their worries.

I think for white people the relationship is clear: if it was wrong to discriminate against relationships on the basis of race, it should likewise be wrong to discriminate against relationships on the basis of gender. But sexual ‘relationships’ between races had been going on for generations; what made Loving historic for a lot of people was that it was finally talking about such relationships in the context of mutual consent and agency for both partners — as opposed to systemic sexual violence against women of color by white men and the lynching of Black men perceived to be pursuing white women. It wasn’t so much “yay! we get to marry white people! this is the best day of our lives!” :p Which is related to:

2. Think about how you talk about “sex” and “freedom.” White people tend to think of consent as an individual thing. Did she, singular, say yes? They’re not usually thinking of the three or four hundred years in which white men raped slaves and live-in domestic workers, or the women and girls today who are caught up in the sex trafficking industry. The right not to have sex was a lot harder to win than the right to have it, and I think a lot of folks (myself included) are skeptical of feminist/queer movements when they treat history as if it’s all “our sex lives used to be so repressed and limited but hurray now we’re free!” Add to that the number of Black men who’ve been falsely accused of raping white women, and there’s an additional layer of reluctance to sign up for a cause that makes more cops the answer to sexual violence and invests a lot of energy in saving white women from all manner of discomfort while having little to say about the imprisonment of Black men for the most petty of crimes. Reluctance especially when, again, white movements treat sexual violence solely as an individual problem (one man raping one woman) rather than a community problem (one race or nationality being granted total sexual agency under the law and another race or nationality just hoping and praying to stay the hell out of their way).

3. Think about how you talk about Black churches. For many white gays and lesbians, the church is a place of repression and silencing, and one of the first institutions they are ready to abandon when they come into adulthood. But the church has played a different role in black communities — Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and many many other civil rights leaders tied their work to religious tradition. Black churches have been a powerful source of progressive organizing in communities of color, as well as a source of emotional and financial support for people who are struggling. I’m not saying there isn’t more work to be done there, and I’m not saying religion played no role in getting people to support Prop 8. But to speak of African-American religiosity as if it’s the same thing as your white neighbor’s homophobic Bible-thumpin’ Leviticus-quoting Rapture-believing denim-jumper-wearing young-earth anti-science women-get-back-in-the-kitchen 700 Club brand of Christianity is to shit on the people who brought you school desegregation and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Black churches are potential allies, and indeed many religious leaders have already come out in favor of LGBT rights, but those alliances aren’t going to get very far if white Leftists keep talking about them as if they are forces of institutionalized oppression when in reality their role in American history has been precisely the opposite.

4. Think about how you talk about your neighborhood. I’m not going to go into the whole history of gentrification except to note that it goes beyond where any one person decides to locate. It’s about how you treat and speak about your community. Would the elderly want to live in your neighborhood? Not would they be welcome but would they actually want to? Would they have things to do? What about families with small children who are not part of your particular subculture or political community? Would you send your own kids to the local schools?

I know white Leftists and/or LGBT folks live all over the map and these issues aren’t germane to everybody, but “building community” seems to be something we value and devote a lot of time to without thinking about the impact it has and the message it sends to people outside “our” (actually quite insular) community. I’ve seen this come up a LOT, not just around Prop 8 but in general when the possibility of POC/queer alliances comes up.

5. Think about how you talk about other people’s neighborhoods. I saw a fair bit of No-on-8 people talking about their reluctance to canvass in “bad” areas. I am going to go out on a limb and guess these were pretty much all communities of color. As far as I can tell, the Yes-on-8 people weren’t complaining about this. Now to some extent that’s apples and oranges because queer and transgender people have different concerns about safety than straight people (even Mormons) do when they’re walking around in unfamiliar territory, but those concerns apply in white neighborhoods as much or more so and I didn’t hear anyone saying “I can’t doorknock in the suburbs or they’ll kill me.” I know when I hear someone say they won’t go into certain parts of the city, even someone else’s city, I feel like a wall just went up between us — even if I’d previously seen this person as a friend or ally — because that’s the kind of neighborhood I live in. And I’m white. So think about how that comes across. As delux_vivens and others have said repeatedly in the past few days, the No campaign didn’t ask for those votes, so it is disingenuous to express shock after the fact.

6. Queerness does not negate whiteness. Neither does communism, anarchism, or any other brand of radical politics. This one was hard for me when I was younger, because the force of what for the sake of brevity I’ll call Mainstream SocietyTM was so strong that I saw all people who were any brand of “other” as natural allies. To an extent, there’s value in that world view. In 1991 I went to a large demonstration in Chicago that was organized by CISPES, ACT UP, and the anti-war movement; the point was to solidify connections between groups that might otherwise seem disparate and single issue, to reject divide-and-conquer strategies of the Right, and to make sure our activist work was attentive to the interrelatedness of different forms of oppression.

But “interrelatedness” != “same as,” and at some point I had to confront how my work on Issue X didn’t give me an automatic pass on Issues Y and Z. Nor did it undermine the institutionalized benefits I’d received from growing up in a white family in a country where race matters very deeply. Over time I also realized how what I thought of as my “alternative” status was actually alienating to many people of color: that in many ways my flagrant disregard of Mainstream SocietyTM was the ultimate sign of white privilege. I could go around carrying a placard with my hair dyed three colors and clothes covered in safety pins, but if an African American woman my same age walked out of the house with so much as a rip on her sleeve or a scuff on her shoe she risked being pegged as a charity case and borderline illiterate. That was difficult for me to work out, because the way I presented myself wasn’t just a fashion thing — it was a rejection of mainstream beauty standards for women and traditional notions of gender. Appearance and self-presentation were politicized for me. I’m not saying we should all go around in pantsuits and business casual and try to be as safe and non-threatening as possible when talking about politics (don’t read me that way), nor am I saying there aren’t people of color who are also concerned about how these issues intersect (don’t read me that way either), but when I looked at this whole thing from the perspective of people who were already, inherently, considered suspect and outsiders, it made the issue much more complicated for me. I used to be all “get out there! mix shit up!” end of story. But when you can put on a suit and tie and put your daughter in her Girl Scout uniform and go to church to pray to Jesus and still lose your child in a directed attack because of who you are, it makes me a lot less critical of people who might be reserved about pushing the envelope, especially if they’re expected to do it in solidarity with people who’ve never shown much solidarity with them. Which brings me to:

7. Acknowledge your debt. This goes back to #1 and #3 above. If you’re going to present your issue (I’m thinking of Prop 8, but other stuff, too) as the outgrowth of the civil rights movement, then it seems smart to learn more about that movement and to get to know people who were involved in it. Civil rights weren’t gifts from enlightened white people, nor were they just part of the natural progression of history. They were earned with blood. Don’t be casual about that. Don’t bring it up only in the context of how it relates to your issue(s). And if you are going to ask for people to support your issue on principle, not because it benefits them but because It’s Just The Right Thing To Do, you might work harder to support their issues on principle, too. By “support” I don’t mean “agree with it in my mind”; I mean get out there and ask where you can be of service. In the case of California, there were at least two ballot measures that directly affected minority communities. I saw very few white activists write about these, especially compared to the number of straight POC I saw writing about Prop 8. ladyjax writes more about this: When white people roll up on Black folks about being oppressors, there’s some truth to it but that gets lost when people start to remember: ‘Hmm, that rally for (immigration rights, education, housing, etc. etc.). I didn’t see you there.’ … Sometimes the fight isn’t always about what you want but about reciprocation.

8. Stop assuming African-American support. Everything I’m saying here could fall under the umbrella of “don’t take people of color for granted,” but I wanted to say something specifically about what seems to be a common assumption — that African Americans, even more than other minorities and definitely more than white people, “should just understand” what gays and lesbians are going through “because it happened to them, too.” First of all, as I (and many others) said above, the parallels between the two movements are not nearly as clear as they’ve been made out to be. Second, to make this an issue of understanding or the lack thereof, rather than resentment at being ignored and trivialized or pushed out of one’s own neighborhood, isn’t helpful. But most of all, it misses the mother of all points, which is that Prop 8, like most everything that sucks, is overwhelmingly about white money and white power. Even if they voted yes in higher percentages, African Americans are not more guilty than whites, who funded this thing and got it done. Black homophobia isn’t especially galling because of their history in this country. White homophobia is especially galling because white conservatives have the resources and, my god, the energy to make defeating LGBT rights such a priority.

9. Stop assuming African-American NON-support. The flip side to the white liberal saying “there’s no point in asking for African-American support because we know we already have it” is the white Leftist saying “there’s no point in asking for African-American support because we know we’ll never get it.” Either because of beliefs about Black homophobia or (more charitably) beliefs about Black communities having more pressing priorities, it’s still a reluctance to form alliances. Over and over again, at least in blogs, I’ve been seeing black and brown women saying “no one approached us” or “we weren’t asked to help.” These are women who voted no anyway (if they’re Californian, or from one of the other states that had a ballot measure of this kind), but while doing so some have bitterly pointed out it’s another sign that people of color are being treated as silent foot soldiers in a movement while white organizers take over the leadership.

10. Finally, there are queer people of color! I almost didn’t include this because it seems too obvious to mention, but I don’t want the fact that I am addressing a white audience right now to be taken as a sign that I’m ignoring queer POC or that I’m painting the queer movement as exclusively white. That’s been another huge issue in this debate. (See Pam’s House Blend post about the treatment of Black gay activists after Prop 8 passed, The N-bomb is dropped on black passersby at Prop 8 protests and ask yourself with friends like these….?) I have much more to say about this, especially as it relates to the treatment of Islam by gay and lesbian activists because that’s where most of my attention goes anymore, but really it merits its own post.

What I will say is that I’ve read some excellent stuff lately (offline) about building alliances between queer communities and immigrants/people of color, and/or about addressing racism in queer organizing, and as much as I like it it still needles me that so much of it assumes an audience of white gays and lesbians, exclusively. Never straight people of color, and, well, the existence of LGBT people of color would ruin the whole argument so they’re just left out altogether. The assumption seems to be that white people can be educated about race but queer POC come from backgrounds so hopelessly homophobic that their only choice is to try to assimilate into a white queer community (who will try to be “more sensitive” but will ultimately still control and define the community’s agenda).

But when the argument is always framed that way — “I know y’all are good on gay and lesbian issues, but now let’s talk about race” — well, just who are you talking to there? I did it myself above, without thinking about it, by linking to the CISPES web site (in case someone doesn’t know what that is) but not bothering to link to ACT UP (because I assume anyone reading me has heard of that). That’s what I’m talking about. So if you’re trying to build alliances but are always assuming that your audience is already politicized around queer stuff but isn’t politicized around race issues, you are implicitly communicating your exclusion of people for whom it works the other way around, or who have been prioritizing both things long before they ever stumbled across whatever you’re on about at this moment. But again, a post in itself. This one’s long enough.

http://illvox.org/2008/11/15/brown-people-did-not-pass-prop-8/

Anarchist Communist Statement On The Global Economic Crisis And G20 Meeting

1.The current crisis is typical of the crises that regularly appear in the capitalist economy. "Overproduction", speculation and subsequent collapse are inherent to the system. (As Alexander Berkman and others have pointed out, what capitalist economists call overproduction is actually underconsumption: capitalism prevents large numbers of people from fulfilling their needs, and so undermines its own markets.)

2.Any solution to the crisis prepared by capitalists and governments will remain a solution within capitalism. It will not be a solution for the popular classes. Indeed, as in every crisis, the workers and the poor are paying – while financial capital is being bailed out with huge sums. This is likely to continue. No change within capitalism can resolve the problems of the popular classes; still less can such a solution be expected from individual politicians, such as Barack Obama. The most such politicians can do is play a part in offering the capitalists a way out, and perhaps in throwing the working class some crumbs.

3.The bank bailouts show not only whose interests the state serves, but the hollowness of capitalist commitment to free markets. Throughout history, capitalists have stood for markets when it suits them, and state regulation and subsidies when they need it. Capitalism could never have existed without state support.

4.In the US, the UK and elsewhere, the bailouts have taken the form of nationalisation of troubled financial institutions – with the full support of capital. This shows that capitalists have no fundamental problem with state ownership, and that nationalisation has nothing to do with socialism. It can also be a method of screwing the working class. We ourselves, not the state, need to take control of the economy.

5.Owing to the globalisation of capital under neo-liberalism, the ruling class recognises that the solution must be global. The G20 is meeting from 15 November to discuss the crisis. This is significant. The rulers of the US, Europe and Japan are coming to realise that they cannot handle the crisis on their own; that they need, not only one another, but other powers, notably China (which is emerging as a top industrial producer, and is on its way to becoming the world's third-biggest economy). India, Brazil and other "emerging" economies will have seats at the table. This may mark a recognition – under discussion for some years – that the G8 alone are no longer the world's economic decision makers. It is likely to signal a shift in the running of the global economic system.

6.We place no hopes in the inclusion of new capitalist powers. China's rulers may claim to be socialist; others, such as Lula of Brazil and Motlanthe of South Africa, may present themselves at times as champions of the poor. But in fact, all are defenders of capitalism, exploiters and oppressors of the people of their own countries, and, increasingly, imperialist or sub-imperialist exploiters of the people of other countries.

7.If the crisis is to lead to anything other than complete defeat for the global popular classes, poverty, exploitation and war, the popular classes must mobilise. We must demand bailouts, not for the capitalists, but for us. We anarchist communists will fight for those who got homes on subprime mortgages to be bailed out and keep their homes. We will continue to engage in and support struggles for jobs with better wages and shorter hours, housing, services, health services, welfare and education, protection of the environment. We fight for an end to imperialist wars and to repression of our class and its struggles.

8.We present these demands in response to the G20 meeting, and will continue to present them in the future. Through such demands, and through direct action to bring them about, we will work towards building a global movement of the popular classes that can put an end to capitalism, the state and the crises they create.

Signed:
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)

Self-Proclaimed Anarchists Drop Banners on G20

This morning, at approximately 5:13 am, a group of hooligans and self-proclaimed anarchists made their displeasure for the G20 known, with two frickin’ sweet banner drops in the federally-occupied territory of Washington, DC.
These hoodlums knew that the G20 was preparing to spread propoganda about the benevolence and success of their antiquated system, so they took it upon themselves to drop some real knowledge on the people. LITERALLY.

See you at the summit,
self-proclaimed anarchists

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/144717/index.php

Union Del Barrio on Obama, Elections

Real change will only come from those who struggle for dignity, justice and self-determination.

With the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States we can say with certainty that there has been a paradigm shift in the mythology of capitalist white rule. Without a doubt the backwards concept of race superiority has suffered a blow, but the transfer of political power from one capitalist party to another should not be taken lightly. Race relations has entered a new level of discussion in an empire that has built its existence on the genocide of indigenous people, the theft of African labor and the premise of expansionism under the ridiculous assertion of divine intervention to settle land and conquer people. The significance of the 2008 U.S. presidential election is that for the first time in the history of capitalism, the most powerful country in the annals of human history will be led by a black man. This phenomenon signals a decline in the ability of white power capitalism to rule openly and viciously as it has since its inception; but more importantly it signals the need for those that financed the Obama campaign to promote president elect Obama as the beacon to keep alive this unjust and decadent capitalist system. In short, president-elect Obama was formed by the elite and will rule with the elite, but the historical feat of a black politician winning the presidency of the United States cannot be taken for granted.

The election of the first black president of the United States signals for us as well a new paradigm of struggle. Certainly the triumph of Obama cannot and does not mean that our struggle for self-determination, justice and dignity is now over. Quite the contrary, our struggle must be intensified, it must be unyielding. For in a time in which the empire finds itself in the midst of the worst economic crisis, a crisis that has propelled the rest of the world into a certain global economic depression. In a time in which endless war is a failed and only remaining strategy for the empire to plunder the resources of the peoples of the world. In this time, in which our communities are under siege, raided, persecuted, deported by one of the most sinister campaigns ever launched by the empire within its boundaries. In this time in which the wall of death has been built all along the borderlands as a damming monument erected by the empire in order to reassure its theft of our lands. That horrendous monument not only destroys communities, divides our people, wounds our collective memory, but it kills with impunity.

In a time of crisis for those in power, we offer our commitment to struggle, our willingness to be free, our hope for a better tomorrow. In a time of the elite’s crisis we must seize the moment and transform their crisis into our victory, their weakness into our triumph, their hesitation into our steadfast movement forward, change only comes when we, those who have been persecuted, exploited, incarcerated, marginalized, disenfranchised, stand together and say enough, and demonstrate our ability to resist. For the empire is more dangerous when it is wounded, when its ideals are shattered, when its economic systems are in turmoil, the United States and its capitalist system has an outstanding ability to be resilient. It has risen triumphant and empowered on many occasions out of multiple crises, for such is the nature of the empire. It must self-degrade to gain strength. Their crisis will not become our victory until we build a movement with enough political strength to once and for all rid our people of the yolk of oppression.

Apologists of the empire, and those scrambling to hold on to the now dilapidated notion of white power will say, that Obama as president of the United States signifies the end of class and race relations in the United States. The end of history, the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement; nothing can be further from the truth. Race and class differences have been taken to never-before seen levels, while for the first time the white minority ruling elite must address race relations when addressing the political superstructure, the system however is still very much entrenched in white power, it is still resilient, it is still powerful and it will not concede much more political space.

This is precisely why capitalism was in need of a facelift and the reason why the Democratic Party has won the contest for control, not only of the White House, but also for Congress. It is based primarily on the capitalists’ prospects and ability to confuse poor working class people into believing that some change has occurred and that this “change” will represent their interests. We don’t believe this for a minute. Capitalism by any other name is still capitalism, oppression by any other means is still oppression, and colonialism by any other face is still colonialism.

For these reasons the results of this election should not be an assertion that change is coming. We have always stated that both the Republican and Democratic parties are representatives of the ruling class, therefore their interests lie in keeping the wealth produced by the working poor. Obama, who was criticized by his opponent for his comments on wealth distribution, reaffirmed his stance by stating that all he wants is to go back to the tax structure of the 1990s. This point is best illustrated in the open thievery which took place last month, as the largest bailout packages in the history of capitalism were negotiated by Congress- of which both McCain and Obama were a part of. The bailout was a safety net for some of the largest corporations and was paid for at the expense of poor people the world over.

There is no evidence to suggest that the election of Obama will fundamentally change the economic problems faced by the great majority of people living within and outside of the political borders of the United States. After all, Obama attended the elite places of learning of the United States; his candidacy was supported by the ruling class of the United States. Obama as president, by itself, does not signify a fundamental change to the reality of working people and oppressed people within the boundaries of the United States, on the contrary, everything points towards the need for the United States to continue the theft of resources of the people the world over in order to rescue and maintain the economic system known as capitalism.

The triumph of Obama, over the war criminal McCain, must be viewed as a weakening of the socio-political understanding of class and race of the empire. But this feat, by itself does not guarantee change, although we recognize that the election of a black man to the White House is of historic proportions, now is the time for people of color and working people who live within the boundaries of the United States to unite

The struggle we have before us, beyond the Presidential election, is the need to articulate what we mean by change. Our immediate task is to organize ourselves in every community, in every school, in every field, in every factory, hotel, prison, and wherever we may find ourselves; for one thing is true, that while the economic crisis continues to escalate, those in power will continue to fire workers, all the while more and more people continue to have their homes stolen by banks in the form of foreclosures.

This is why we support the efforts of those that call for a moratorium on foreclosures, those who call for a halt to the raids and deportations, and those that call for reparations for the African community as well as support for cleaner sources of energy and the elimination of green house gases, and finally the rights of people to determine who they want to marry regardless of gender.

To all workers we say that your struggle to build unions and independent associations at every worksite, free from ICE raids and intimidation by the bosses signifies change. The struggle of women for inclusion and equality in our society, to combat all forms of gender violence is and must continue to be part of our change. To all educators: your struggle to infuse class-consciousness in the classroom despite the criminal budget cuts is our struggle. The struggle of the youth and students for education, cultural, social and political participation is our struggle. The struggle for relevant education and access to higher learning is our change. The struggle for human rights by grass-root community organizations that document migra and police brutality and have organized themselves to promote raids-free communities is the change that we need. To all non-profit workers: your struggle to provide the necessary tools and resources to help grassroots organizations build a movement from the bottom and to the left and rid social movements of the paralysis generated by the non-profit industrial complex, is the change that we are building. To the intellectuals and academia: your struggle to generate ideas, write our history and analyze our social conditions despite the restrictions of bureaucracy of think tanks is the change that is coming. For artists and cultural workers: the canvas, the mural, the musical instrument, spoken word, their body, their written word, la flor y el canto, and to those who continue to use culture as the most beautiful tool against oppression, this is the change that we must build. To the environmentalists who have struggled tirelessly against degradation, pollution, health rights, toxic-free communities, yours is the change we must build.

We must unite for self-determination of all oppressed people no matter the nationality; we must unite as a working class people; and our struggle must be an anti-imperialist struggle, based on the struggles of all of us, when that happens then change becomes possible. Ours is not a change based on empty hopes for a better future; it is based on a need to ensure that all of us build a better community, a better society, a better world.


http://illvox.org/2008/11/10/union-del-barrio-on-obama-elections/

Corporate Media Targeted in Actions Across the US

The following is a communique that was sent out to all the local media in Carrboro and Chapel Hill, NC on the morning after election day. Hundreds of newspaper boxes had their covers changed and contents augmented with anarchist news and opinion, a small payback for the election media blitz and near media blackout that followed militant conflict at the conventions.

Over 20 similar actions happened across the country. We anticipate (and hope!) that other groups will post their own press releases and action reportbacks. This cross-country, coordinated action was set for the day after election day, on the biggest news day of the year. In addition to confronting the media itself, and providing counter-information to the public, this action seems to have served as a kind of "experiment" in what can be done with the networks leftover from the conventions. Judging simply by the unprecedented numbers of cities participating, it seems to have been a success. Once again, we would encourage other groups to post their own logic behind participating.

"A Public Service Announcement"

Early this morning, many thousands of corporate newspapers in over 20 cities across the United States, including Chapel Hill and Carrboro, were given more accurate front pages. That one wealthy politician will replace another is not news worthy. Capitalism has always won at the polls, and it always will. McCain and Obama’s support for the financial bailout proved this, and ensured that any vote would be a vote for Wall St. The real stories worth telling are those of resistance and struggle, any instance where oppressed people attempt to realize dignity, autonomy, and equality in their daily lives.

We are getting organized. We will continue to ensure that the real stories get told.

Sincerely,
Unconventional Action - journalism department - NC

Assembly in Providence, RI

Saturday November 29th , Sunday November 30th, 2008

Gather in assembly in Providence Rhode Island

Comrades, we are glad to announce a finalization of plans to host the general assembly of our network here in Providence. Please come to Providence and join together in two days of meeting, planning, workshops, and conversation and dialogue.

RSVP NOW !
Housing

To help us better accomodate everyone, if you are planning on attending, please send your answers to the questions below to thematch (a) riseup.net.

* Name
* Phone
* Email
* Do you need sleeping arrangements?
* Is couch space okay?
* Is floor space okay?
* Do you have any allergies?
* Do you have any other housing specific needs?
* Where are you coming from?
* How many days will you be in? What days?
* Do you need travel arrangements/transportation help?
* What is your expected time of arrival?
* What is your expected time of departure?
* Do you need childcare?
* Do you have any special needs or requests?
* Any additional notes or comments?

***************************************************
AGENDA

Do you have ideas or items for discussion on either Saturday or Sunday? The agenda is of course open and to be finalized before our meeting as is our tradition.

Please respond to the list or avocado (a) riseup.net with agenda points.

http://www.neanarchist.net/?q=assembly/providence

Immigrants and anarchists erect barricades after renewed attack by riot police

Immigrants joined by local anarchists erect barricades after riot police charges once more on the asylum-paper queue outside central immigration office in Athens

In the early morning of Saturday 8 of November 2008, riot police forces (MAT) once again attacked immigrants queuing outside the central immigration office in Athens, greece, in order to register their asylum papers. In the last attack of the kind two weeks ago one Pakistani man was killed on the spot, whereas two more succumbed to their wounds days later in the hospital.

The assassinations had caused a mass rally in the center of Athens called by the Pakistani Community and joined by hundreds in solidarity. This time the reaction of the immigrants was immediate. Resisting police force, they erected barricades blockading the avenue running past the immigration office with barricades, effectively blocking one of the main east west arteries of the Greek capital.

Joined by local anarchists who hanged banners and distributed leaflets against police repression in Urdu, the immigrants demanded the immediate release of 3 persons wounded and arrested during the morning raid. The protest numbering more than 500 people kept the road blocked for more than 5 hours and conceded to leave only after their comrades were released and the police national leadership agreed to begin talks with Pakistani Community reps about improving and speeding up asylum procedures.

http://www.libcom.org/news/immigrants-anarchists-erect-barricades-attack-riot-police

Fort Lewis IVAW chapter opens "Coffee Strong" coffeehouse

The newly formed IVAW Fort Lewis chapter, along with IVAW Seattle and the GI Voice Project have opened Coffee Strong, a GI coffee house that will serve as the as a space for military veterans, active duty soldiers, military families and supporters to meet and discuss the war, deployment, PTSD and the hardships of life in the military. Coffee Strong will also be the base of operations for the Fort Lewis Chapter.

The project is completely funded by donations from supporters – it will take over $3500 per month to keep this resource available to the community. Coffee Strong opened its doors on November 5th, and a grand opening concert with Son of Nun will be held at 9pm on November 15th. Stop by the coffee house at 15109 Union Ave SW, Lakewood, WA to show your support! Get more information and make donations to support Coffee Strong at www.givoice.com.


http://ivaw.org/

Government black boxes will 'collect every email'

Internet "black boxes" will be used to collect every email and web visit in the UK under the Government's plans for a giant "big brother" database, The Independent has learnt.

Home Office officials have told senior figures from the internet and telecommunications industries that the "black box" technology could automatically retain and store raw data from the web before transferring it to a giant central database controlled by the Government.

Plans to create a database holding information about every phone call, email and internet visit made in the UK have provoked a huge public outcry. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, described it as "step too far" and the Government's own terrorism watchdog said that as a "raw idea" it was "awful".

Nevertheless, ministers have said they are committed to consulting on the new Communications Data Bill early in the new year. News that the Government is already preparing the ground by trying to allay the concerns of the internet industry is bound to raise suspicions about ministers' true intentions. Further details of the database emerged on Monday at a meeting of internet service providers (ISPs) in London where representatives from BT, AOL Europe, O2 and BSkyB were given a PowerPoint presentation of the issues and the technology surrounding the Government's Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP), the name given by the Home Office to the database proposal.

Whitehall experts working on the IMP unit told the meeting the security and intelligence agencies wanted to use the stored data to help fight serious crime and terrorism, and said the technology would allow them to create greater "capacity" to monitor all communication traffic on the internet. The "black boxes" are an attractive option for the internet industry because they would be secure and not require any direct input from the ISPs.

During the meeting Whitehall officials also tried to reassure the industry by suggesting that many smaller ISPs would be unaffected by the "black boxes" as these would be installed upstream on the network and hinted that all costs would be met by the Government.

"It was clear the 'back box' is the technology the Government will use to hold all the data. But what isn't clear is what the Home Secretary, GCHQ and the security services intend to do with all this information in the future," said a source close to the meeting.

He added: "They said they only wanted to return to a position they were in before the emergence of internet communication, when they were able to monitor all correspondence with a police suspect. The difference here is they will be in a much better position to spy on many more people on the basis of their internet behaviour. Also there's a grey area between what is content and what is traffic. Is what is said in a chat room content or just traffic?"

Ministers say plans for the database have not been confirmed, and that it is not their intention to introduce monitoring or storage equipment that will check or hold the content of emails or phonecalls on the traffic.

A spokesman for the Home Office said that Monday's meeting provided a "chance to engage with small communication service providers" ahead of the formal public consultation next year. He added: "We need to work closely with the internet service providers and the communication service providers. The meeting was to show the top-line challenges faced in the future. We are public about the IMP, but we are still working out the detail. There will a consultation on the Communications Data Bill early next year."

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said the organisation was pleased the Home Office had addressed its members and was keen to continue dialogue while awaiting a formal consultation.

Database plans were first announced by the Prime Minister in February. It is not clear where the records will be held but GCHQ may eventually be the project's home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-black-boxes-will-collect-every-email-992268.html

Help Food Not Bombs support those displaced by the global economic crisis.

We need your help. PREPARE FOR AN ECONOMIC CRISIS. Please talk with your local Food Not Bombs volunteers and consider organizing daily meals and try to reach out to your community. We are encouraging all Food Not Bombs groups collect additional bulk food and start local Food Not Lawns Gardens. It is also possible for your chapter to get a delivery of $500 worth of bulk rice, beans and other dry goods by calling the Taos Food Not Bombs collective at 575-776-330. If Possible please join the Tent City Protest in Washingtion DC.

In the past few months it has become clear that we face world changing crisis droughts, climate change, food speculation, high cost genetically modified crops, and rising oil prices have caused world food prices to jump 70 percent. At the same time urgent reports of a possible U.S. attack on Iran could drive up the cost of oil and food even higher, forcing many millions of additional people to go hungry.

" The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the world's most prestigious financial body, has warned that years of loose monetary policy has fuelled a dangerous credit bubble, leaving the global economy more vulnerable to another 1930s-style slump than generally understood." The BIS warns of Great Depression deeper and more painful than that of 1930s. This could be the most urgent crisis in human history. When Katrina hit the American Red Cross and FEMA failed to provide help and the survivors had to rely on Food Not Bombs. Americans will need to turn to us again as the global economy fails. Daily meals, gardening and more advanced efforts at community organizing will be needed. The public will be turning to us for help. Please start to prepare now. We can help you start a Food Not Lawns community garden and a Food Not Bombs group.

As the crisis grows our office is getting an increase in calls and emails asking Food Not Bombs for support as the economy fails. Food riots are growing in a number of countries and many community leaders are contacting Food Not Bombs requesting help in organizing kitchens, gardens and food distribution programs. When the American Red Cross and FEMA failed to respond to Katrina Americans called our office seeking help. Again Americans are looking to Food Not Bombs to provide logistical guidence as society slides into chaos.

Please start a Food Not Bombs group in your community. We will provide you support. The use of the process of Formal Consensus, our dedicated to nonviolence and our focus on recovering food to make into vegan meals that are shared for free has been effective at responding to past crisis including Katrina, the earthquakes in California and the political meltdown in the Ukraine.

We are supporting the creation of local "Food Not Lawn " groups with the idea that the more food we grow the more we can feed our communities. The founders of Food Not Bombs made sure they did not become public personalities knowing that the movement would remain strong and more effective if it was organized locally. When Katrina hit the Gulf Coast the decentralized autonomous structure of Food Not Bombs made it possible for us to become the primary movement providing food to the survivors. Because of our reputation it is very possible that the public will turn to Food Not Bombs for solutions to the current "Really Really Great Depression".

The global economy is crashing displacing tens of thousands or even millions of people. In April food prices jumped over 70 percent. Exxon Moble takes the largest profits in world history.

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/economic_crisis.html

Protests as France's Vichy hosts first conference since war

VICHY, France (AFP) — Protesters against Europe's immigration policy descended on the town of Vichy Monday as the shamed capital of France's former pro-Nazi dictatorship hosted its first international government conference since World War II.

Anarchists torched three cars in the town centre and smashed a shop window on the sidelines of the demonstration, organisers of the march and an AFP journalist said.

Riot police used tear gas after they were pelted with objects.

Police said 1,700 people joined the protest while organisers put the figure at 2,500.

Shortly before the march police detained several demonstrators dressed as Nazi camp inmates. Some protesters said they sought to link the pro-Nazi Vichy era with the EU countries' controversial immigration policies.

Police said these demonstrators were freed by Monday night.

Two other people were later also arrested.

Vichy's municipal leaders hoped that by finally hosting European ministers 64 years after the fall of Marshall Petain's regime they could shake off their wartime stigma and become a popular spa resort once more.

But several busloads of militants had other ideas, and turned up to protest a conference called to discuss the integration of ethnic minorities in Europe, with some linking current French policy to that of the pro-Nazi past.

"We denounce the worrying evolution of European migration policies, which recall the ideas that led to deportations at the end of the 1930s," declared the leader of a small anti-globalsation group, Xavier Renou.

Ahead of the conference, Vichy's conservative mayor Claude Malhuret, had expressed hope that the town was on the verge of escaping its grim past.

"It's a scandal that there are 10 conferences per year in Berlin, Hitler's city, and in Moscow, Stalin's city, and no-one says a thing, while Vichy has been shunned," complained Malhuret.

He thanked Brice Hortefeux, France's minister of immigration, integration and national identity, for organising the conference and breaking the taboo.

"If conference organisers in future are looking at Vichy, Evian and Cannes, they won't systematically choose Evian or Cannes," Malhuret said, looking forward to a day when Vichy can compete with other potential venues.

"Things won't change overnight, but it's a way of rediscovering our dignity, and especially our ordinariness."

Officials from the 27 EU members are to hold two days of talks.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQoZikGdY0x56CEwG6v2MphkUDQ

Riot in Shenzhen

Shenzhen - Hundreds of rioters attacked police in Shenzhen on Friday afternoon after a motorcyclist died near a checkpoint. The violence continued until yesterday morning, when calm was restored in China's southern economic powerhouse.

Anger flared when Mr Li Guochao, 31, crashed into a lamp-post after a local official threw a walkie-talkie at him as he sped towards a checkpoint set up by a sub-district office, according to a statement from the public security bureau in the city of more than eight million.

Mr Li's family, who thought the mishap was caused by the police of a nearby district, attacked their station on Friday afternoon. They were joined by hundreds of others, some of whom burned a police car, the statement added.

The protest was the latest in a series of confrontations over social issues in China, where thousands of riots erupt each year, many stemming from grievances over abuse of power, corruption or land grabs.

The street where the violence took place had returned to normal yesterday afternoon. There was a beefed-up police presence outside the station where the riots took place.

Mr Li, who had no riding licence, had been stopped at the checkpoint in the city's Bao'an district while riding his motorcycle, which bore no number plate, the police statement said.

An official tried to block his path when he turned back at a crossroad, but seeing that he was going to crash through the checkpoint, threw the walkie-talkie at him. Mr Li lost control of his motorcycle and crashed into the lamp-post, the statement said.

He was taken to hospital where he died a few hours later.

Mr Li's relatives gathered about 30 people and carried his body to the police station, where they 'smashed things' and set off firecrackers, the statement added.

By 5pm, more than 400 people had gathered at the police detachment with more than 2,000 others watching nearby. Some people threw stones and set fire to a police car. Police were able to disperse the crowd only at 2am. There were no other reports of injuries.

The checkpoint official has been detained by police, while the official Xinhua news agency said Shenzhen's public security bureau had established that police had shown restraint in handling the unrest. People living in the Bao'an area said the checkpoints were set up to enforce a ban on motorcycles following a spate of muggings by riders who snatched handbags.

China's top police official has urged officers to avoid inflaming protests at a time when social unrest is easily ignited.

In June, residents in Weng'an town in south-western Guizhou province torched and ransacked police headquarters and government offices after allegations spread that police had covered up a girl's rape and murder.

AFP, Xinhua, Reuters

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_300233.html

US Military Admits to Afghan Civilian Killings

While stressing their allegations of Taliban complicity in the deaths, the US military admitted yesterday that it had killed 37 civilians in an air strike on a wedding party in Kandahar Province early last week. The report comes just days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued his government’s assessment of the attack.

Long delays and repeated denials have damaged the credibility of international forces with both the Afghan government and the civilian populace in the wake of previous US strikes which killed large numbers of civilians, such as August’s strike in Herat Province. The strike killed at least 90 civilians, but the US continued to deny any significant civilian casualties for over a month, finally revising their account in early October.

Even then, the US insisted the Herat strike killed “more than 30″ civilians, and in spite of an Afghan government investigation that concluded it was based on a false tip called in by a rival tribe, they continued to maintain that the killings were “legitimate self-defense.”

Admitting the latest killings more quickly may relieve tensions with the Afghan government somewhat, but President Karzai is still pressuring President-elect Obama to halt the growing US reliance on air power in populated areas of Afghanistan. In spite of this, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher says he does not believe the killings have damaged relations with Afghanistan.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/09/us-military-admits-to-afghan-civilian-killings/

Hard lessons from Afghanistan

Former Kabul correspondent Alan Johnston reflects on decades of turmoil in Afghanistan, from the Soviet invasion in 1979 to the intervention by the West.
Old Russian Tank in Afghanistan


Alan hears from ordinary Afghans who witnessed events, Russian soldiers who served in Afghanistan and the American intelligence experts who served in the field as well as some of the British commanders who have since faced fierce fighting in the Hindu Kush.

Programme 1: Trapping the Bear

The tale of the catastrophic miscalculation that humbled the mighty Red Army in the Hindu Kush.

Tens of thousands of troops, tanks and helicopters poured into Afghanistan late in 1979. They laid waste to the land for a decade, during which millions of Afghans died or were forced to flee.

But in the end it was the Russians who retreated, chased out, in part, by the Cold War warriors of the CIA who backed the rebels in the mountains.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/11/081103_hardlessons_one.shtml

Court halts Franco-era exhumation

A Spanish court has suspended the opening of mass graves in the inquiry into the fate of more than 100,000 who vanished under Gen Franco's rule.

The top criminal court ruled by 10 votes to five to stop exhumations from the 1936-39 Civil War.

It imposed the halt to allow it to rule on whether Spain's best-known judge, Baltasar Garzon, had the competence to launch the inquiry.

Campaigners condemned the court's ruling as "brutally inhumane".

"There are many people who are very old who have been waiting for a long time," Emilio Silva, head of the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, told AFP news agency.

Judge Garzon announced last month that exhumations could start, including the gravesite of poet Federico Garcia Lorca.

Judge Garzon named Gen Francisco Franco and more than 30 members of his regime as instigators of alleged crimes against humanity.

But the top criminal court, the National Audience, ruled on Friday: "The activities related to the exhumation of bodies must be suspended while this court resolves questions raised by the public prosecutor regarding the competence of the judge to make this move."

Its ruling follows an appeal from the public prosecutor who says Franco-era crimes cannot be examined because of an amnesty law passed in 1977.

Judge Garzon has the support of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which recently asked Spain to abolish the amnesty law because it contradicted international treaties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717117.stm

Real Change Depends on Stopping the Bailout Profiteers

To understand the meaning of the U.S. election results, it is worth looking back to the moment when everything changed for the Obama campaign. It was, without question, the moment when the economic crisis hit Wall Street.

Up to that point, things weren’t looking all that good for Barack Obama. The Democratic National Convention barely delivered a bump, while the appointment of Sarah Palin seemed to have shifted the momentum decisively over to John McCain.

Then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, followed by insurance giant AIG, then Lehman Brothers. It was in this moment of economic vertigo that Obama found a new language. With tremendous clarity, he turned his campaign into a referendum into the deregulation and trickle down policies that have dominated mainstream economic discourse since Ronald Reagan. He said his opponent represented more of the same while he stood for a new direction, one that would rebuild the economy from the ground up, rather than the top down. Obama stayed on this message for the rest of the campaign and, as we just saw, it worked.

The question is now whether Obama will have the courage to take the ideas that won him this election and turn them into policy. Or, alternately, whether he will use the financial crisis to rationalize a move to what pundits call “the middle” (if there is one thing this election has proved, it is that the real middle is far to the left of its previously advertised address). Predictably, Obama is already coming under enormous pressure to break his election promises, particularly those relating to raising taxes on the wealthy and imposing real environmental regulations on polluters. All day on the business networks, we hear that, in light of the economic crisis, corporations need lower taxes, and fewer regulations – in other words, more of the same.

The new president’s only hope of resisting this campaign being waged by the elites is if the remarkable grassroots movement that carried him to victory can somehow stay energized, networked, mobilized – and most of all, critical. Now that the election has been won, this movement’s new mission should be clear: loudly holding Obama to his campaign promises, and letting the Democrats know that there will be consequences for betrayal.

The first order of business – and one that cannot wait until inauguration – must be halting the robbery-in-progress known as the “economic bailout.” I have spent the past month examining the loopholes and conflicts of interest embedded in the U.S. Treasury Department’s plans. The results of that research can be found in a just published feature article in Rolling Stone, The Bailout Profiteers as well as my most recent Nation column, Bush’s Final Pillage.

Both these pieces argue that the $700-billion “rescue plan” should be regarded as the Bush Administration’s final heist. Not only does it transfer billions of dollars of public wealth into the hands of politically connected corporations (a Bush specialty), but it passes on such an enormous debt burden to the next administration that it will make real investments in green infrastructure and universal health care close to impossible. If this final looting is not stopped (and yes, there is still time), we can forget about Obama making good on the more progressive aspects of his campaign platform, let alone the hope that he will offer the country some kind of grand Green New Deal.

Readers of The Shock Doctrine know that terrible thefts have a habit of taking place during periods of dramatic political transition. When societies are changing quickly, the media and the people are naturally focused on big “P” politics – who gets the top appointments, what was said in the most recent speech. Meanwhile, safe from public scrutiny, far reaching pro-corporate policies are locked into place, dramatically restricting future possibilities for real change.

It’s not too late to halt the robbery in progress, but it cannot wait until inauguration. Several great initiatives to shift the nature of the bailout are already underway, including bailoutmainstreet.com. I added my name to the “Call to Action: Time for a 21st Century Green America” and invite you to do the same.

Stopping the bailout profiteers is about more than money. It is about democracy. Specifically, it is about whether Americans will be able to afford the change they have just voted for so conclusively.

Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org

The Obama '08 Phenomenon: What We have Learned?

Without question, the nation has experienced an election of historical significance, for reasons that go beyond the obvious "first Black" aspect of race. This has also been the most-hyped presidential campaign in U.S. history, if for no other reason than the simple fact that every presidential campaign is more hyped than the last, since hype is what corporate media sells. But what has the experience taught us?

We have learned that a large and decisive national minority of whites can be persuaded to vote for a certain kind of Black man for president if that Black man possesses the following characteristics:

A family history that includes no African American lineage, and is thereby untainted by the negative cultural baggage associated with North American slave descendants. (This is similar to the special white dispensation afforded in past generations to Afro-Caribbean baseball players.)

An eagerness to embrace racist political icons such as Ronald Reagan, while vociferously denying that white racism is and has been "endemic" to America. This man must also be willing to without hesitation denounce, repudiate and otherwise vilify other Black individuals - even those who have been personally dear to him - at the first sign of white displeasure with that person.

A compulsion to telegraph whites that he shares their disdain for Blacks as a group. This specially endowed individual must be prepared to castigate Blacks in every arena of life, from incompetent child-rearing (the cruelty of fried chicken breakfasts) to failures of Black manhood (acting like "boys" rather than responsible adults), the shame of Black female promiscuity (stopping black girls from having babies out of wedlock is "the single biggest thing that we could do to reduce inner-city poverty") and Blacks' collective lack of good hygiene ("You know what would be a good economic development plan for our community would be if we make sure folks weren't throwing their garbage out of their cars"). But the Black man who would woo white presidential votes must have the smarts and discipline to never, never, never subject whites to such egregious, blanket group criticisms.

"This specially endowed individual must be prepared to castigate Blacks in every arena of life."

He must possess an imagination fertile enough to declare that Blacks have already come "90 percent of the way" towards racial equality - a statement without statistical validity based on any social or economic indexes, but one which assures whites that their long suffering at the hands of bothersome Black complainers is nearly over. This Black president-to-be must implicitly promise that his own election will provide the missing ten percent, and bring the race issue definitively to a close.

We have learned that whites took the candidate's words to heart, en masse. A CBS/New York Times poll taken one week before the election showed that 68 percent of whites believe that Blacks and whites "have about an equal chance of getting ahead" in American society. This fantastic conclusion was clearly inspired by Barack Obama's singular success, since less than half of whites gave that answer in July. Even more astonishingly, 43 percent of Blacks said the same thing -a response unlike any ever recorded in the history of professional polling, and totally divorced from Black realities. We have learned that Obama-L'aid kills healthy Black brain cells.

We have learned that Black politicians and activist-poseurs have an infinite capacity to celebrate not having engaged in struggle with Power, and that the Black masses can be made drunk by the prospect of vicariously (through Obama) coming to power. Having failed to make even the mildest of demands on Obama in return for unquestioning support, Black misleadership vowed they would press for firm commitments on issues of importance to African Americans once Obama had passed the final hurdle. (White progressives who were similarly self-neutered during the campaign also promise to begin acting like real people's advocates, any day now...just you wait and see.) We have already learned that "Progressives for Obama" of all ethnicities, who failed to put pressure on the candidate early on, when it might have made a difference, are full of crap.

"Sixty-eight percent of whites believe that Blacks and whites "have about an equal chance of getting ahead" in American society."

We have learned that even in failure and collapse, the Lords of Capital are smart enough to know they desperately need a new face, and are willing to bankroll the Black man who can provide it. During this election cycle we learned that capital can switch its party allegiances in an instant, first vetting and then jump-starting the Black candidate who would become the biggest campaign spender in U.S. election history, by far. In 2008, the Democrats became the party of Big Capital, whose choice was Barack Obama. We have learned that capital is never blind to color, when it can be used to capital's advantage.

We have learned that this generation will have to learn from damn near scratch what a real social movement looks like - which will be doubly hard, since they have been misled to believe that this year's frenzied electioneering was actually a "movement." Now it is over, and one Black man is moving - into the White House, having never promised his Black supporters a single thing of significance. But of course, hardly anyone Black made any demands of Obama.

Some folks never learn that Power concedes nothing without a demand.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=873&Itemid=1

No Change Expected in Iraq After Obama’s Victory

US Ambassador Ryan Crocker said today that the United States’ general policy towards Iraq will not change after the election of Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.

This seems to also be the view of Iraqi officials, with presidential cabinet chief Nusseir al-Aani saying “only approaches and strategies” will change in Iraq, “but the aim will remain as it is.” Iraqi Foreign Ministry Hoshyar Zebari also said the cabinet does not expect that the new administration will make “surprising changes” nor did he expect President-elect Obama to embark on a “quick disengagement” policy with respect to Iraq.

Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whose Iraqi Islamic Party severed all ties with the United States late last month over the killing of a senior party member, sent a congratulatory message to Obama and said he hopes the promise of change will not be limited to the United States.

Meanwhile Ahmed al-Massoudi, the spokesman for the opposition Sadrist bloc, demanded that the President-elect withdraw American troops from Iraq, adding “he made promises to pull out troops from Iraq. The Iraqi people do not care about who will lead America, they only care about their independence.”

President-elect Obama initially spoke of a 16 month plan to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq, he later clarified that with numerous pre-conditions which made it more of a best-case scenario. Eventually, Obama was praising the “success” of the surge and the differences between his position and that of the current administration were unclear at best.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/05/no-change-expected-in-iraq-after-obamas-victory/

What Now, Liberals?

You gonna hide for the next 4 years, giving excuses, when he doesn't end the war or change anything? Or are you gonna put the fire under his feet?

Puerto Rico’s Teachers Beat SEIU Raid

When last seen on the picket line, Puerto Rican teachers were fighting their way through police barricades to appeal to fellow workers from the Service Employees (SEIU) at its lavishly funded convention in San Juan in June.

The message of the Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR) was simple: please stop SEIU President Andy Stern from colluding with the indicted governor of the island to replace FMPR with a “company union.”

In the view of SEIU, teachers needed a new SEIU-affiliated union because FMPR no longer had legal recognition after its walk-out over wages, classroom size, and the threat of privatization.

This month, however, the teachers themselves disagreed that it was time for a change. By a margin of 18,123 to 14, 675, they voted against joining the SEIU-backed SPM (Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Maestros), which is closely aligned with another SEIU affiliate, the Association de Maestros de Puerto Rico, an organization of school principals and administrators.
OFF PROGRAM

At SEIU’s convention, only a handful of delegates dared to challenge Stern on this issue. When eight rank-and-file members from California tried to distribute a leaflet asking why the “top leadership has sided against the teachers of Puerto Rico in a gross case of ‘colonial’ unionism,” SEIU staffers threatened several of them with reprisals. “They told us that this is a betrayal and that we could be suspended from the union if we continued handing out the fliers,” delegate Brian Cruz, from Local 1021 in San Francisco, explained to The San Juan Star.

Most of the 3,000 delegates and guests simply cheered when Stern and SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera, a native of Puerto Rico, introduced their good friend, Anibal Acevedo Vila, the island’s governor. Acevedo Vila is still awaiting trial on federal corruption charges and it was his administration that precipitated a 10-day, island-wide public school strike led by the FMPR last winter. As The Star reported June 3, SEIU used its convention and the governor’s appearance to promote a rival organization, “which is hoping to become the new union representative for an estimated 42,000 public school teachers.”

It was not to be. The FMPR orchestrated a “vote no” campaign, after it was denied a spot on the ballot as further punishment for its “illegal” strike. FMPR was even barred from having observers at teacher polling places.

Prior to the start of the election, FMPR presented evidence to the labor relations commission showing that it still had voluntary financial support from 12,000 members, who have continued to pay union dues even though automatic deductions from all teachers’ paychecks were discontinued when FMPR was decertified.
Although SEIU favors “employee free choice” on the mainland and assured critics here there would be a multiple-choice ballot, Puerto Rican teachers had just one union option, which they then rejected.

The defeated SPM has almost no dues payers so SEIU had to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into this losing effort, much of it spent on advertising. As one FMPR supporter reported, SEIU had “paid staff at each school giving out free T-shirts and coolers and the media and the government were clearly in its favor but still they couldn’t impose their union on us.”

FMPR activist Edgardo Alvelo, who teaches at a vocational school in Rio Piedras, estimates that his union spent only “$50,000 on the whole campaign.” According to Alvelo, “that money was very hard to obtain, but it was enough to win. It was our people in the schools that did the job. Today, we are celebrating and tomorrow our struggle will continue in all our schools.”
94 PERCENT TURN-OUT

The vote turnout was extremely high. Of the 36,000 teachers eligible to participate due to their permanent status, 33,818 actually voted, with a thousand of those ballots being challenged or voided. FMPR now faces the task of continuing to function as what’s called a “bonafide organization” under Puerto Rican labor law. While still deprived of the full collective bargaining rights it had before the strike, FMPR retains a strong steward structure, the ability to represent members, and mobilize around educational policy issues and day-to-day job concerns.

FMPR supporters in New York, California, and elsewhere aided the successful “vote no” campaign by raising money to help keep this militant independent union afloat. (For more information, see the FMPR’s own website: http://fmprlucha.org) On October 14, some protested outside the Manhattan headquarters of United Healthcare Workers-East (the former SEIU/District 1199 long headed by Rivera), where they denounced Stern’s raid on FMPR as an insult to New York hospital workers “proud history of fighting for justice and dignity.”

During an August visit, one New York Solidarity Committee member, Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez, brought money that was collected for FMPR members disciplined for their union activity. Reports Sheridan-Gonzalez, a registered nurse:

“The union, in collaboration with students and parents, had developed a progressive, inclusive curriculum that was extraordinarily successful. This collaborative structure was unilaterally dismantled by the government/school authority in 2007 and 17 teachers were suspended when they fought back. Their energy and commitment was inspiring and reminiscent of the spirit of U.S. unions in the 1930s and Puerto Rican labor in years past.”

That same feisty spirit was on display in this month’s island-wide union vote, which gave SEIU an expensive lesson in the meaning of “no.”

http://labornotes.org/node/1964

The US Empire will Survive Bush

The United States may emerge from the Iraq fiasco almost unscathed. Though momentarily disconcerted, the American empire will continue on its way, under bipartisan direction and mega-corporate pressure, and with evangelical blessings.It is a defining characteristic of mature imperial states that they can afford costly blunders, paid for not by the elites but the lower orders. Predictions of the American empire's imminent decline are exaggerated: without a real military rival, it will continue for some time as the world's sole hyperpower.

But though they endure, overextended empires suffer injuries to their power and prestige. In such moments they tend to lash out, to avoid being taken for paper tigers. Given Washington's predicament in Iraq, will the US escalate its intervention in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia or Venezuela? The US has the strongest army the world has ever known. Preponderant on sea, in the air and in space (including cyberspace), the US has an awesome capacity to project its power over enormous distances with speed, a self-appointed sheriff rushing to master or exploit real and putative crises anywhere on earth.

In the words of the former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld: "No corner of the world is remote enough, no mountain high enough, no cave or bunker deep enough, no SUV fast enough to protect our enemies from our reach." The US spends more than 20% of its annual budget on defense, nearly half of the spending of the rest of the world put together. It's good for the big US corporate arms manufacturers and their export sales. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, purchase billions of dollars of state-of-the-art ordnance.

Instead of establishing classic territorial colonies, the US secures its hegemony through some 700 military, naval and air bases in over 100 countries, the latest being in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Ethiopia and Kenya. At least 16 intelligence agencies with stations the world over provide the ears and eyes of this borderless empire.

The US has 12 aircraft carriers. All but three are nuclear-powered, designed to carry 80 planes and helicopters, and marines, sailors and pilots. A task force centerd on a supercarrier includes cruisers, destroyers and submarines, many of them atomic-powered and equipped with offensive and defensive guided missiles. Pre-positioned in global bases and constantly patrolling vital sea lanes, the US navy provides the new model empire's spinal cord and arteries. Ships are displacing planes as chief strategic and tactical suppliers of troops and equipment. The navy is now in the ascendant over the army and the air force in the Pentagon and Washington.

The US military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean from 2006 to 2008 shows how the US can flex its muscles half-way around the globe (and deliver humanitarian relief at gunpoint for political advantage). At least two carrier strike groups with landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and thousands of sailors and marines, along with Special Operations teams, operate out of Bahrain, Qatar and Djibouti. They serve notice that, in the words of the current defense secretary, Robert Gates, speaking in Kabul in January 2007, the US will continue to have "a strong presence in the Gulf for a long time into the future".

A week later the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Nicholas Burns, said in Dubai: "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the US station two carrier battle groups in the region." This is not new. In his farewell address in January 1980, weeks after the start of the hostage standoff in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter made it "absolutely clear" that an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the US, and such an assault will be repelled by any means including military force. He said that the Russian troops in Afghanistan not only threatened a region that "contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil" but were at the ready "within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow".

A quarter of a century later, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger updated the Carter Doctrine, displacing the threat from Moscow to Tehran: should Iran "insist on combining the Persian imperial tradition with contemporary Islamic fervour, it simply cannot be permitted to fulfil a dream of imperial rule in a region of such importance to the rest of the world".

Ultra-modern conventional armed forces and weapons are ill-suited to fight today's asymmetrical wars against non-state actors resorting to sub-conventional arms and tactics. But supercarriers, supersonic aircraft, anti-missile missiles, military satellites, surveillance robots, and unmanned vehicles and boats are not going out of season. Intervention, direct and indirect, open and covert, military and civic, in the internal affairs of other states has been standard US foreign policy since 1945. The US has not hesitated to intervene, mostly unilaterally, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Bolivia and Colombia, in pursuit of its imperial interest.

Taking the USAID (United States Agency for International Development), Fulbright Programme and Congress for Cultural Freedom of the anti-Communist cold war as their model, the stalwarts of the new global war on terror have created equivalents in the State Department's Millennial Challenge and Middle East Partnership Initiative. The defense department enlists universities through Project Minerva to help with the new model counterinsurgency warfare and unconventional military state-building operations.

The US economy, syncretic culture and Big Science are unequalled. Despite huge fiscal and trade deficits, and the Wall Street banking and insurance meltdown, which have unhinged its financial system and rippled across the global economy, overall the US economy remains robust and pacesetting in creative destruction. Never mind the social costs at home and abroad. But its shrinking industrial and manufacturing sectors may be the weakest link.

The US still holds a substantial lead in research, development and patents in cybernetics, molecular biology and neuroscience. This is facilitated by publicly, privately and corporately funded research universities and laboratories that establish outposts overseas as they draw in brains from around the globe.

They remain the US model for the rest of the world, as do its globalising museums, corporate architectural idioms and marketing strategies (political and commercial). It is no surprise that the US reaps disproportionate harvests of Nobel Prizes, not only in economics but in the natural sciences; or that American English has become a global language. This is both cause and effect of the immense leverage of US multinationals. US popular and consumer cultures penetrate the most remote places on the planet. Along the shifting periphery Washington and K Street (the Washington street known for its lobbies) join forces with collaborating elites and regimes.

This American empire has significant family resemblances with past empires in its grab for critical natural resources, mass markets and strategic outposts. Americans know they have a considerable stake in the persistence of their imperium. Some social strata benefit more from its spoils than others. Still, it is profitable socially, culturally and psychologically, especially for its intelligentsia, liberal professions and media.

The empire has extraordinary reserves of hard and soft power for persisting in its interventionism. The US has the wherewithal and will to stay a face-saving course in Iraq. There is a deficit of combat troops for large conventional ground operations and a strategic incoherence in the face of irregular warfare against insurgent, guerrilla and terrorist forces. But the deficit of soldiers will be remedied. Private contractors will raise armed and civilian mercenaries, preferably at cut-rate wages from third world dependencies.

Washington masks its imperial self-interest with declamations about the promotion of civil rights, social welfare, women's liberation, the rule of law and democracy.

However, for US power elites, regardless of party, there is an absolute need and priority: until the implosion of the Soviet Union it was to lay the specter of communism; since 9/11 it is to slay the serpent of radical Islamism.

The Iraq Study Group's report of December 6, 2006, prepared by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, was not so much concerned with the turmoil on the Tigris as with its impact on the US empire: "Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to US interests. It runs along the sectarian fault lines of Shiite and Sunni Islam, and of Kurdish and Arab populations. It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves. It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including al-Qaida. Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world."

Iraq matters because, should it "descend further into chaos," it risks diminishing "the global standing of the United States". James Baker (Republican) and Lee Hamilton (Democrat) take it as given that Washington will continue to make the law in the Greater Middle East, as it has since 1945. The report is clear: "Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan."

Baker-Hamilton turned for help to the best and the brightest of non- or bi-partisan organisations and think tanks that mushroomed since the Vietnam war. Several of these institutions, some of whose staffers prepared questions, position papers and partial drafts for the Iraq report, make no secret of their engagement.

The "bipartisan" Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was a major contributor to the Commission. Drawing trustees and advisers "equally from the worlds of public policy and the private sector," its aim is to "advance global security and prosperity in an era of economic and political transformation by providing strategic insights and practical solutions to decision makers."

The “non-partisan” International Republican Institute is deeply implicated in Iraq and chaired by John McCain; it means to "advance freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, good governance and the rule of law." And the non-profit National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, chaired by the former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, works "to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide". The self-advertised bipartisan but far-right Washington Institute for Near East Policy claims "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East [and to] promote an American engagement in the Middle East".

The Baker-Hamilton Commission also took counsel with ex-officials and pundits of certified research and public policy institutes like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, the Rand Corporation and the American Enterprise Institute. Whatever their political proclivities, very few of the collaborators, associates and patrons of these policy centers rigorously question the political, economic or social costs and benefits of empire for the US and the world. Their disagreements and debates are about how best to secure, exploit and protect the empire.

Underscoring that the role of the US is unique in a world in which few problems can be resolved without it, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirms that "we Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition - it is that of a republic, not an empire". Defense Secretary Gates says the US must keep its "freedom of action in the global commons and its strategic access to important regions of the world to meet our national security needs", which entails supporting a global economy contingent on ready access to energy resources.

Even centrist censors do not challenge Washington's unconditional support of Israel. They, like the neocons, oppose any hard-and-fast linkage between the Iraqi morass and the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Both baulk at the Baker-Hamilton report's suggestion that the US "cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability". Democrats and Republicans are of one mind in their resolve to step up undercover operations in Iran backed by the threat of a full-scale economic blockade or military action.

Neither presidential candidate proposes an alternative to the imperial charge except perhaps to muffle the moralising and messianic rhetoric in contentious relations with Iran, China and India, and a resurgent Russia - all four driven by untried, nationally conditioned forms of capitalism. Both candidates have used foreign capitals as stages for attesting to their imperial bona fides and determination.

Arno J Mayer is emeritus professor of history at Princeton University.

This article first appeared in the excellent monthly Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com The full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. All rights reserved © 1997-2008 Le Monde Diplomatique.