Blocs

A few weeks ago Chris Hedges (I’ve almost always respected his work and writing) wrote a piece of “journalism” that declared that Oakland had a cancer amongst its occupiers.  Here is that article.  http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/

My initial reaction to this article was to lose a great deal of respect for Chris Hedges. My first response was to call out the true cancer in our societies – that being the physical cancer that afflicts so many people I know both in and out of my family.  My second response was to put the “cancer” on capitalism and the greed that it has spread amongst our communities. I still stand by both of these – but lately I’ve been reconsidering my opinion on Hedges.

I was at a court house solidarity event the day that that article was written and the response of many of the Oakland occupiers was a similar disgust and aversion to so many of them being called “cancer” by Chris Hedges.  Mr. Hedges does not live in Oakland and doesn’t have the perspective, so who is he to judge?

Hedges has age and experience.  But there’s a new world being born and his perspective as an elder is increasingly suspect.

Here is my opinion on the matter as it stands right now:  Hedges’ article had an effect on the Oakland occupiers who use the black bloc tactic.  I think it has both radicalized them further, and perhaps even increased their dormant militant instincts.

I have never participated in a black bloc.  Though I have to admit how tempting it is sometimes.  There have been a few moments in my life where I’ve been able to go smashy-smashy on ruined, discarded furniture in order to turn it into firewood.  The smashing was satisfying, but it’s really no way to live.  Hulk smashes.  I don’t.

However, I do get the sense that those black bloc occupiers are up to something and it’s my prayer and urgent meditation that they behave themselves.  Anarchy is about self-policing and taking the high road of a moral evolution together.  We need to be re-purposing, not destroying property.

In case you didn’t already know, Black bloc is but one of a number of blocs here in Oakland.  The other two that I’ve participated with are the Sunshine Bloc, and the Ice Cream Bloc.

The Sunshine Bloc is dedicated to total, radical transparency.  Come rain and come shine, we are who we are, and I am who I am, and you do what you do.  It’s best to tell the truth every time.  What have you got to hide anyway?  Shame is best undressed, and everybody wants to tell their “dirty” little secrets for one reason or another.  I think it’s better to not be ashamed of every mistake – and it’s so important not to fear the next mistake.  But the only way to  not fear is to love.  What else matters?

The Ice Cream Bloc is a group of occupiers who get together, eat ice cream – then go shut down some banks.  It seems like a pure indulgence, but that’s kind of what Occupy is for a lot of people.  For instance, I was talking to an elderly hippy woman about how far we should really take all this “occupy stuff.”

She said, “Oh darling, you can’t stop it now – it’s organic and it’s going to grow and heal every single one of us.  Besides, I’ve been waiting all my life for something like this, and now that it’s happening – I’ve gotten greedy”

Her eyes lit up when she said the word “greedy.”  The irony was a little too priceless.

She may have been a crazy lady, but everyone’s a little crazy so who gives that much of a fuck?

So according to her logic: Occupy is more of a healing agent than a cancer. So it’s a good thing all round.  I happen to agree.  But I’ve also grown increasingly concerned that the violent revolutionaries are going to keep on escalating the amount and intensity of police interactions and many of their elders won’t be there to discourage them.  Except Chris Hedges.  And maybe Cornel West…

The question as I see it then is:  Do we, the vocal nonviolent individuals in Oakland escalate our own movement in order to make the violence stop?  To me the answer has always been an obvious yes, but it might require leaders to do so.  This would essentially be the end of the occupy movement by its original definitions.  I’m not sure if that is a good thing quite yet.

However, in a very real sense – Occupy is one giant “bloc” itself.  It is a block against capitalism, and all privilege, hierarchy and environmental destruction that has accompanied it.  It is a cultural log jam.  A veritable fustercluck.  And now the movement has seemingly stagnated and gotten bogged down with horizontal hostility and is blocked itself. That’s right, we’re witnessing a constipated movement.  I apologize for the shittyness but someone had to say it.

But what’s the laxative?  No one seems to know.  I think the Syrians have become a little too impatient and are trying to force it.  Aljazeera be with them.

Horizontal Hostility and Occupy Oakland

“Horizontal hostility” is a newish phrase that comes from the fervor of political correctness that liberals are so often up in arms about.  Horizontal hostility is essentially the act of an individual or group directing hostility to other individuals or groups that should theoretically share the majority of values.  I.e. when a vegan starts verbally abusing a vegetarian we can see horizontal hostility.  Other examples could be feminists of a certain quality that look down on other feminists for not being as radical.  The current Republican presidential campaign is also a pretty good example of horizontal hostility.

In case it’s not obvious already, horizontal hostility is completely at odds with the concept and value of solidarity.  To be sure, I believe that if we’re living in an equal society then that would mean that ALL hostility would be horizontal since there would be no hierarchy to make any sort of vertical hostility possible.  But that’s simply an ideal at this point.

The reality is that horizontal hostility has plagued the occupy movement from the start.  Many people understand the absolute necessity of not getting too obsessed with in-fighting and petty bickering.  Most people realize how much of a distraction it is.  But to  have a social movement succumb to horizontal hostility completely would be tragic.  I’m not sure if occupy Oakland is there yet, but the amount of hostility that I see happening on twitter is not encouraging.

I’m tempted not to write about this nor give it any validation what-so-ever.  But we’re all supposed to write what we know, and this is what I know right now.  I’ll leave the details as vague as possible in order to not throw more fuel on the fire.  Any further perspectives are heartily welcomed.

The story as I know it goes like this:  I met an individual at a bank protest around tax day last year.  I’ll just call this individual “X.”  X is also a blogger and seemed to be pretty involved in the Oakland protest scene already.  He actually interviewed me about the protest organizers – which I knew next to nothing about – I just wanted to protest banks – it didn’t matter to me in the least who was organizing.  So I wasn’t really able to tell X anything at that point.  Then when occupy started, I began seeing X all over the place again.  We would talk briefly as the crowds mingled, but never anything deep or meaningful.  I began following X on twitter and we had a few conversations that way.  And then we met for a beer after one of the general assemblies last month.  The conversation was intelligent and respectful.  However, there have been two different occasions when I’ve overheard him calling other people “an asshole.”  This is, of course, the most basic form of horizontal hostility:  name-calling.  Maybe the persons on the receiving end of this verbal abuse had done something to deserve it, I don’t know for sure.  But regardless of someone deserving something or not, I feel that name-calling is always the act of an insecure and desperate person.

And now, in the last week the hostility has escalated.  Apparently X has done more than just call some people an asshole, X has also been attempting to dominate one of the working groups within occupy Oakland.  And so this working group eventually had enough and began some sort of smear campaign against X.  They have “raised concerns” about X’s legitimacy in being involved.  Their accusations are sloppy and they have no meaningful proof so it seems all very speculative to me at this point.  But it also seems like the genie is out of the bottle in one way or another.

People would probably be naive if they assumed that occupy Oakland hasn’t been infiltrated by one or many government groups.  It’s true that a multitude of agenda’s have converged on the movement.  Many of these agendas are actually working towards the common good.  Some only want to work towards economic, and therefore political de-stabilization.  And then there are the feds which will do anything to stagnate the growth of the movement.  I think it is likely that anyone advocating violence is indeed an agent provocateur (or someone completely over the edge) – and it is these violent individuals that bring on the wrath of the state and simultaneously alienate the majority of other people from getting involved.  Either way, they are bad news.

It’s anyone’s guess as to which category X truly falls into.  This is why we need to uphold the value of transparency now more than ever.  It’s because of this that I attempted to intervene and mediate the conflict between X and the working group.  X doesn’t seem to want any intervention.  I guess this is simply because it would be such an attack on his status as a respected member of occupy Oakland.  X blocked me on twitter so my suspicions are further aroused by that by behavior.

Now, I’m a trusting fool and I make no bones about that.  But I’m also a player; which means that if you start heaping bullshit at me, I’m perfectly willing to heap some bullshit back on you.   But I would prefer to just live and let live – I guess it’s only a matter of time until I know what X is really up to.  The truth will set us free!

Nietzsche Sez

It comes as no surprise to people who have studied Friedrich Nietzsche that he had some of the most balanced perspectives of any philosopher preceding him.  His thinking was so far ahead of his time that he bears revisiting over and again.  So, I’d like to share this passage from Human, All -Too- Human with you in which Nietzsche outlines some of his thoughts on growth and deterioration.  Nietzsche ought to speak for himself, but I might do some unpacking of my own in future posts – the last paragraph is extremely topical for occupiers and state officials:  Enjoy

Ennoblement through degeneration:  History teaches us that the best-preserved tribe among a people is the one in which most men have a living communal sense as a consequence of sharing their customary and indisputable principles – in other words, in consequence of a common faith.  Here the good, robust mores thrive; here the subordination of the individual is learned and the character receives firmness, first as a gift and then is further cultivated.  The danger to these strong communities founded on homogeneous individuals who have character is growing stupidity, which is gradually increased by heredity, and which, in any case, follows all stability like a shadow.  It is the individuals who have fewer ties and are much more uncertain and morally weaker upon whom spiritual progress depends in such communities; they are the men who make new and manifold experiments.  Innumerable men of this sort perish because of their weakness without any very visible effect; but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen up and from time to time inflict a wound on the stable element of a community.  Precisely in this wounded and weakened spot the whole structure is inoculated, as it were, with something new;  but its over-all strength must be sufficient to accept this new element into its blood and assimilate it.  Those who degenerate are of the highest importance wherever progress is to take place;  every great progress must be preceded by partial weakening.  The strongest natures hold fast to the type, the weaker ones help to develop it further.

It is somewhat the same with the individual:  rarely is degeneration, a crippling, even a vice or any physical or moral damage, unaccompanied by some gain on the other side.  The sicker man in a warlike and restless tribe, for example, may have more occasion to be by himself and may thus become calmer and wiser; the one-eyed will have one stronger eye; the blind will see more deeply within, and in any case have a keener sense of hearing.  So the famous struggle for existence does not seem to me to be the only point of view from which to explain the progress or the strengthening of a human being or a race.  Rather, two things must come together:  first, the increase of stable power through close spiritual ties such as faith and communal feeling; then, the possibility of reaching higher goals through the appearance of degenerate types and, as a consequence, a partial weakening and wounding of the stable power:  it is precisely the weaker natures who, being more delicate and freer, make progress possible.

A people who crumble somewhere and become weak, but remain strong and healthy on the whole, are able to accept the infection of the new and absorb it to their advantage.  In the case of the individual the task of education is this:  to put him on his path so firmly and surely that, as a whole, he can never again be diverted.  Then, however, the educator must wound him, or utilize the wounds destiny inflicts upon him; and when pain and need have thus developed, something new and noble can then be inoculated in the wounded spots.  His whole nature will absorb this, and later, in its fruits, show the ennoblement.  

Concerning the state, Machiavelli says that “the form of government is of very little importance, although the half-educated think otherwise.  The great goal of statesmanship should be duration, which outweighs everything else because it is far more valuable than freedom.”  Only where the greatest duration is securely established and guaranteed is continual development and ennobling inoculation at all possible.  Of course, authority, the dangerous companion of all duration, will usually try to resist the process.

Anarchy

As the occupy movement continues to develop, it seems that the line between reform and revolution are becoming more sharply drawn.  The reformists are happy with capitalism as a system and would like to simply see the corruption fixed in politics.  Then there are the revolutionists that have no desire for capitalism and would prefer humanity to discover a more just, equitable and vibrant system for all to participate in.

I’m personally for a third option:  Moral Evolution in which we all make a collective step forward together and move from the love of power, to the power of love.

Which brings me to my support and enthusiasm for anarchism as a political philosophy and for its potential as the best social system we can possibly imagine.

I realize that anarchy is repellent to many people, but I also suspect that this is simply because there is a prevailing lack of understanding.  Our history has a number of instances where anarchists have committed acts of political violence and this is understandably off putting.  This ranges from McKinley’s assassin, Leon Czolgosz to the unabomber, Ted Kaczynski and a number of lesser knowns in between.

While there is, in my humble opinion, never justification for violence; the history of political violence in anarchism should not be an automatic deterrent for those curious about the positive aspects of anarchy.  This violence should be understood as a failure of “prefigurative politics.”

Any political system, whether anarchic, republic, or communistic has its ideals that it tries to foist on the whole of a society.  These ideals may come from the best of intentions, but when the rubber hits the road there are simply too many divergent perspectives for the ideals to truly take root.  The ideal is always prefigurative in the sense that it seeks to, a la Gandhi, “be the change” in the world.   But the divergent perspectives begin pushing back and the inevitability is violence.  Thus the prefigurative politics fail at providing a plausible ideal.

Anarchism is not unique to this failure of prefigurative politics though.  In fact every social system has had some sort of violence in its history and so to simply say that anarchy is violent is an unhelpful half truth.  In fact, anarchism as Immanuel Kant describes it should be completely devoid of violent force.

The occupy movement (particularly occupy Oakland) is currently in the prefigurative phase.  The premises that the movement is based on are distinctly anarchic:  Leaderless organization, direct democracy, direct action, justice, freedom, equality, transparency, and accountability.  These are all values that are at the root of anarchism.

I find anarchy to be most preferable because it allows us all the freedom to discern the best course for our own lives.  It also allows us the opportunity to develop some deep, meaningful trust in our communities.  We need not put trust in “leaders” – instead we should put trust in our own abilities to self-govern.

There is probably a fair amount of fear that people have about actually living in an anarchic society.  But I believe these fears to be unfounded.  A functioning anarchistic society would still have some rules developed through consensus. There would simply be no rulers.  Those rules would be enforced by the community at large.  In this sense it is like adding multitudes to the police force, since we would all be our own “self-police” and we would also need to be watching out for our neighbors.  For simplicity and efficiency’s sake, the only rule that is truly necessary is:  Do to others as you would have done to yourself.  Following this rule ensures total de-centralization with simultaneous total systemic regulation.

For those that still fear anarchy; I have to ask what they feel the direction of capitalism is?  Do you think that the 1%ers and Wall street folk have the average American citizen’s best interest at heart?  No, they are operating under their own world view which is anarchistic in its own right.  They have succeeded in legalizing bribery and corruption through the lobbying industry and they have legitimized the destruction of our natural world under the auspices of private gain.  How is this not already anarchy of a different sort?  In this sense, is anarchy simply a natural evolution of capitalism?  If so, what is there to fear aside from the irrational fear of the unknown?

Instead of fear, we can all chose to embrace anarchy under the power of love.

Oakland is already half way there.  The social justice advocates, radical activists and artists that pop up on every corner of Oakland have already succeeded in building a meaningful infrastructure of trust and mutual aid.  The Oakland police department has sown so much distrust in the community that it actually makes more sense for them to disband and allow the city to develop its own new and vibrant culture without a police presence.  I feel like it’s only a matter of time until the tipping point occurs and Oakland is able to shrug off the authoritarian government and be a free city.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that anarchy presupposes that we will devolve into barbarism.  Instead I prefer to believe that the prefigurative culture that occupy is establishing will provide the opportunity for the moral evolution to occur.  I think we can still have a happy marriage of anarchy and a functioning city system that provides all the services that it already provides if not more.  All it takes is for us to totally re-examine our values and determine where our true priorities should be.

Top 10 Reasons Why Occupy Oakland Should Occupy Piedmont

I’ve grown to love many of the people I’ve gotten to know through the occupy movement.  Nearly everyone I’ve met has given extraordinary thought to their involvement and so many people are completely dedicated to some serious social change.  It’s a wonderful thing to be part of and it’s really unfortunate that more people haven’t felt the need to get involved yet.  I’m not sure what’s holding them back aside from fear.

We can’t let history repeat itself.

As the saying from Germany during the 2nd world war went:  “First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out; Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

They haven’t come for me yet, and even if they did – I don’t have anything to give them.  Can’t get blood from a stone.  And so I’m dedicated to speaking up for people who have already lost their house or their savings in this crisis.  And I’m dedicated to speaking up for my fellow occupiers that have been the subject of police abuse.  No one can possibly justify police violence and come off looking like a sane person.

I hope Oakland residents understand how out of control the police have become.  When you step back and look at the history of this movement so far, the occupiers have been incredibly passive.  Or at least they’ve been passive compared to what’s going on in Syria right now.  The community gave the movement so much love early on; I think it’s time to see who really wants to see the change to society that we so desperately need.

But it seems clear that Oakland is running out of patience with the occupiers.

So I would like to suggest that the occupiers move northeast into Piedmont.  Here are ten good reasons to do so.

1.  The 1% lives there.

2.  Oakland city hall will stop sicking police on the occupiers since it’s out of their jurisdiction (we can work on language to deter any sort of mutual aid).

3.  Occupiers will have to deal only with Piedmont police.

4.  Piedmont police force is puny compared to Oakland’s force.

5.  Piedmont is a place where we could begin doing wealth addiction interventions with families and provide lectures against consumerism and promote the values of anarchism.

6.  If done the right way, we could fundraise to rent the Kaiser Auditorium from Oakland City to use it as social center.

7.  If done properly, we could garner major support from Oakland citizens with this kind of action.

8.  If done right, we could garner major support from Piedmont citizens.

9.  Clearly occupy Oakland needs to try some different tactics.

10.  It would be a good example to other occupations around the country and world.

I wish that I had the time to pitch this idea to the General Assembly, but unfortunately my schedule has me pre-occupied during them.  I hope that this idea can work its way over there from someone or another.  Otherwise I’ll have to try to squeeze in the time to make the proposal.

To Be Continued…

The past few weeks have been a time for me to stand aside from the occupy movement a little bit and re-evaluate my role and which direction people seem to be going as a whole.

The failure of the January 28th building occupation came as little surprise to me.  I knew they didn’t have the community support necessary to pull it off.  What’s worse is that the secrecy (or security?) that went in to the planning of the building occupation was completely pointless since the location got out into the public sphere anyway.  The secrecy of it also alienated a lot of people who liked the idea, but valued transparency more.

Yesterday, there was a small group of Oakland residents that gathered in front of city hall to demand that occupy oakland stand down (some said arrest them, others said kill them…).

And so the movement seems to be effectively divided.  The 1% must be reveling in their victory right now.  Speaking of the 1%:  It seems like the evidence would point to the following fact:  There is a bell curve that has developed with the 1% elite financial powers on one side, and the 1% of occupiers on the other side, with 98% of the American public caught in the middle.

And now it is as if the old “left” and “right” divides have emerged with a new twist.  This is tragic, since the only way we can accomplish the goal of sustainability is for a unified people to completely transform society.

I used to argue that taking money out of our cultural equation was the solution to it all.  Lots of people liked this idea in theory but couldn’t possibly imagine how it would function in practice.  This is either due to my inability to articulate it, or because I was simply wrong.  Either way, I’m at peace with the fact that people feel like they need money in their lives.  Though I refuse to put any faith in it.

Now, I think that there are some perfectly other valid solutions:  Decolonizing is one.  Anarchy is another.  But how to make these appealing enough to the 98% of people that are still on the fence concerning which direction to go?

Of course this not just an American thing either.  There are occupations around the world rooting for us all to do the right thing.  And if I were to include the rest of the population of the world in that bell curve we would see it skew towards the occupiers.  This might be what Martin Luther King Jr meant when he said:  “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

Unfortunately, I have the feeling that violence will continue to plague this movement.  The police will continue with their brutality, and it is probably only a matter of time until some disgruntled occupier snaps.  God have mercy on us all if/when that happens.

I’m still not sure where I fit into all of this anymore.  I’ve been trying to reach out and talk up the movement to as many different people as possible.  I’ve always maintained that the movement is non-violent.  But the more that the police crack down on peaceful protesters, the more likely it seems that people are going to want to fight back.  Violence is always an abstraction until it happens to you or someone you love.  Once the abstraction is broken, reality bites hard and it seems to be the way of nature for people to bite back.  And so the cycle of violence is perpetuated.  I maintain that there is a high road to take, but that can only be done together as a unified people.  Right now the 98% are content to watch the representatives of the 2% beat each other up.

In the meantime, the economic crisis will continue to worsen.  The price of oil will continue to rise.  Our rivers and fields will continue to be polluted and our forests clear cut and our mountain tops blown to bits.  All because the machine of capitalism demands it.  The time is coming soon for Americans everywhere to figure out which direction they want to go.

So here are some questions that I have for anyone willing to think about them:

Do you really want to be at war with Iran?

Are you fine with the political game being completely rigged?

Have you started to come to terms with the continued destruction of our natural world?

Are you comfortable in your home with the TV or do you yearn for real community?

There is some sort of cultural storm coming.  I don’t know what it will be or when it will happen, but I can’t shake the feeling that something huge is coming.

 

Thoughts On Climate Change

I listen to a lot of people’s ideas about stuff.  It’s rare that I assume that my ideas are the best or at least most preferable, but they are my ideas so I continue to voice them.  Climate change is such a big idea that I feel like I may have treated it as the “elephant in the room.”  In a very real sense, it is the reason that I feel so motivated about trying to change people’s minds about money and capitalism.

But however you feel, or whatever you think about climate change – the fact is that our climate is always changing.  This statement applies in a micro and a macro sense.  Our micro climate might be understood as the weather of the day.  It might also be understood as the way we feel about something on a particular day.  Emotions change – often times with the weather.  So this is a micro climate change.

And then there is the macro climate.  This would encompass the fact that the polar ice caps are melting and that the atmosphere is being transformed because of an abundance of CO2.  But this can also apply to our cultural spirit of the time.  So, our culture is changing just like the temperature of our planet might be escalating.  There are so many variables that I would be pretty skeptical of anyone that claimed to have a practical solution.  In fact the solution is simply CHANGE.

Humanity has somehow discerned from our environment and our history that the evolution is always at work.  So, if our climate is changing because of our collective addiction to fossil fuels, then it is also up to us to change along with climate.  Adapt or die.  What else has there ever been?

And so our species is at a bit of crossroads:  Continue to exploit and destroy the land; or break our dependency on the machine and find harmony with nature again.  It remains my hope that we can have the best of both worlds:  That we might be able to reign back technology, while simultaneously create cities that are massive food producers and completely powered by clean energy.

I was raised Presbyterian and there is a joke that I heard early in my life.  It goes –  Question: How many Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb?    Answer:  CHANGE?!?!

This is nicely echoed by my new favorite religious joke.  Question:  How many anarchists does it take to change a light bulb?  Answer:  Anarchists can’t change shit.

Anyway, how about some Bowie?

SOTU: STFU w/all the clapping

Obama’s speech last night was fine.  He’s a great speaker and he’s really trying for some sort of populist rhetoric.  The unfortunate part about populist rhetoric is that you simply can’t please them all.  And so in his attempts to please “both sides,” he simply ends up looking like a liar to “both sides.”

But perhaps the biggest lie of all is in the title of last night’s program:  The State Of The Union.  This country is anything but a union.  We have become so divided that I personally have great difficulty believing that the American people might be able to take a collective high road together to resolve a convergence of crisis:  economic, environmental, health, and collapsing unsustainable infrastructure.

It’s true that there are any number of ways to heal this country, and I’m afraid that the government will take the simplest solution and use force (akin to amputation) to subdue dissenting voices.   If that becomes the case then they will probably just print some more money and give it to all the people that didn’t dissent.  This is the very definition selling out.

I refuse to sell out.  I don’t believe in money so I can’t be bought.  As a musician, I am essentially relegated to the title of public servant since no one really pays for music anymore.  Not that this is a bad thing since I believe total freedom lays in a place where money doesn’t exist.  In a sense, I am already occupying that place just by virtue of being a musician even though I still make enough to pay my landlord every month.

And yet Obama said NOTHING about the arts last night in his speech.  He talked a lot about jobs, but he also started and ended with militaristic rhetoric.  And the most depressing thing of it was the incessant clapping.  Congress, senate, and the judges of this country sounded like robots as they applauded the meaningless gestures of a man bought and sold by the corporate elites.  Not that it bothers them of course, since they’re all bought and sold themselves.

And since I don’t acknowledge Obama’s leadership of me, I would like to make a statement of my own:  I am a natural person.  Your system has no authority over me.  I follow my personal values and I will always act with the following values as my guide:  Freedom, equality, compassion, transparency, and sustainability.

Celebrating The Rain

Today was the first mass event for 2012 in the bay area.  And it rained all day.  But oddly enough, that didn’t keep the people away.  From 6am to the parties that are still going as I write, hundreds of people kept showing up in waves to protest the immoral (and in many cases criminal) activity of the bankers and their mammoth corporations.  The Oakland folk were billing it as a “carnival of resistance.”

The rain probably kept a lot of people away.  But there were still so many familiar faces and many other new faces too.  The atmosphere for those of us that have been occupying since day one felt a little like a reunion.  The camps have all been dispersed and people haven’t had anywhere to gather for awhile.

This drought of peaceful assembly by people united in dissent was broken today.  I don’t believe in coincidences and I don’t question the timing of the universe – so as it rained on us today the feeling was deeply cleansing (dare I say Uniting?).

I have fond memories of my childhood putting on a poncho with galoshes and splashing around in any puddle that I could find.  The bigger the better.   The floods in the spring of 1993 were a paradise.  Today’s celebratory atmosphere was just what I needed to feel the bubbling emotions of inspiration again.

However, there are a number of issues that I have about the occupy movement in its present incarnation.  The first, and in my opinion most significant, is that occupy lacks a serious environmental critique.  Everything that I do is in the quest of sustainability for everyone that can achieve it.  And I believe that capitalism and sustainability are incompatible.  Until I can be persuaded otherwise; I will think that capitalism as a system is more destructive than productive.  Capitalism deprives humanity of our connection to the earth and it instead makes us dependent on the machine.

No doubt that technology is amazing.  But I think that it might be a bit too amazing and needs to be reigned in with some serious public dialogue instead of blind faith in the next iphone app.  I don’t hear this kind of thinking in the occupy movement yet, but it seems to me like it should be the priority for public debate.  But instead the movement is still angry about bank bailouts and home foreclosures.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

So, instead of the media paying such scrupulous attention to the republican presidential primaries, I would like to see the occupy movement completely shift the consciousness to a debate about the quality of our environment.  The economic crisis is unavoidably connected to our on-going and worsening environmental devastation.

The machine has gone unchecked for too long.  Raging against it is all well and good, but there must come a time when its true value is thoroughly examined.

Thankfully, droughts end.  Nothing can last forever – and that includes the 1% and their machines.  I’m looking forward to the massive awakening that will happen this spring.   My prayer is that this awakening will be the implementation of the very best that American values have to offer to the world.

 

SOPA STRIKE!

This

http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/sopa-strike/changelog/