Dismantle Civilisation Rotating Header Image

September, 2008:

never in the annals of human history was so much owed by so few to so many

by Ceri Shepherd, financialsense.com

These clowns never ever learn, and why should they? When the easy lessons of years of accumulated moral hazard is simply “whatever we do the Government will rescue us”. Now we are supposed to believe that Henry Paulson the ex CEO of Goldman Sachs one of the major players in this latest Wall Street blockbuster disaster has a cunning plan, a solution to solve the problem. It is nothing but another Wall Street Scam, and here is the reason why.

There is nothing wrong with the assets that the banks hold, they are not impaired in any way whatsoever. They are just not worth what the bankers would like them to be worth. Everything has a price, and everything has a buyer. You simply keep dropping the price until a buyer steps forward. It is called the free market.

Remember Gordon Gecko in Wall Street “I loved it at $15, it’s an insult at $17”

If this sham of a bailout proceeds the taxpayers will find out the hard way what the real price of these “assets” are, long after the bankers “sell” TO THE ONLY BUYER AVAILABLE the American taxpayer at the artificially high price rigged by Mr Paulson.

IT IS THEFT PURE AND SIMPLE. OFFLOAD THEIR RISK AND MAKE IT OURS. THE TAXPAYERS WILL BE LEFT HOLDING THE GARBAGE.

If the assets are not worth what Wall Street would like them to be worth, that is Wall Streets problem and Wall Streets alone. They took the decision to ignore any sensible valuations, to ignore all the busts of history and embark on this reckless business model. They are private companies, making private decisions if those decisions are wrong

THEY SHOULD GO BUST, you either believe in the FREE MARKET or you end up with this wacky command and control soviet style economy.

Share

peak oil is welcome

Says Richard Heinberg in the Ecologist.

Climate change is a problem of fossil fuel dependency, and solving it requires reducing that dependency quickly and dramatically.

From a policy standpoint, however, climate change is hard to address. Because the worst of its impacts may come decades from now, its solution is framed as a moral imperative: we should reduce fossil fuels for the environment and future generations. Many policy-makers genuinely want to do the right thing, but when a choice arises between climate protection and economic growth, growth wins nearly every time. Because 85 per cent of world energy comes from fossil fuels, it is hard to find a way quickly to end their use without a severe reduction in energy and a contraction of the economy. Any politician campaigning for economic contraction faces a tough battle.

The peaking in production rates of oil, coal and natural gas presents a different problem. Again, it is one of fossil fuel dependency, but in this case, instead of a sink (or pollution) dilemma, it is one of source (or scarcity). Fossil fuels are finite. Depletion ensures that the rate of extraction of these substances will soon start to decline, wreaking havoc on industrial economies, perhaps leading to societal collapse.

Will peak oil solve the climate problem? No! It is true most models of future carbon emissions overestimate the fossil fuels that can be extracted in coming decades. Indeed, studies suggest depletion will hold carbon emissions to a level such that atmospheric CO² concentrations won’t significantly exceed 450 parts per million (ppm) – the target often mentioned by IPCC.

However, recent research reveals climate sensitivity has been underestimated, so our target should be 350ppm – a level surpassed decades ago. Averting catastrophe means reducing fossil fuel use more quickly than depletion alone can effect.

Will addressing climate change mitigate the impact of peak oil? Not unless extremely stringent emissions policies reduce consumption rates ahead of depletion. But, as noted, such policies are a tough sell on the basis of moral argument alone.

Depletion adds more economic weight to the necessity of addressing climate change. Consider future supply scenarios for coal: if, as studies indicate, world coal production starts falling within two decades, coal will soon become much more expensive. New coal power plants thus become a bad bet for purely financial reasons, and renewable energy sources and conservation start to look much more attractive.

Peak oil kicks the discussion into overdrive. Soaring petroleum prices are creating crises for the trucking, airline and automobile industries, and contributing to rapidly rising food costs. These impacts rivet the attention of policy-makers. Reducing oil dependency is increasingly seen as a matter of economic survival.

Taken together, climate change and oil/coal/gas depletion form an airtight argument for rapidly weaning society off fossil fuels. Maintaining dependency is not an option; our only choice is whether to reduce it proactively and intelligently, or let dire events drive reactive policies.

Share

ordinary human poverty

Another excellent post by Sharon Astyk.

The question becomes how do we turn this story into one where most of us can say “We were poor, but we had enough – just enough, but enough.” And where our kids may grow up not really realizing just how poor we were? How do we accustom ourselves to the ordinary human unhappiness (which, after all, isn’t unhappiness every moment, merely a recognition that most people aren’t happy all the time) that is our shift in wealth, without allowing ourselves to fall through the floor, into the deeper stages of collapse?

There are three answers to this. The first is to reduce your needs. I expect that for a long time, the stigma that attaches to any kind of poverty will keep many of us struggling to keep up appearances. We are likely to feel ashamed the first time we have to ask for help, ashamed that our clothes are no longer as fine, that dinner is plainer and that we now share our homes. The best way, I think to get over these feelings is to get over them in advance – to change your values as so many here have. Thrift shop clothes and patches should be sources of pride, symbols of your independence from industrial manufacturers. The food on the table – and the people who share it – are the point – not whether high-social value elements like wine and meat are present. The need to speak out against the culture that tells us that poor is dirty and bad becomes paramount – because the more resources we waste keeping up appearances the harder it will be to adapt.

The second is self-sufficiency of the kind most of us are trying to achieve. The garden, the sewing needle, the saw and hammer, the ability to make and repair, to grow and produce and nurture things – these are things that demonstrate, as Jeremy Seabrook has contended, the opposite of poverty is not wealth, it is self-sufficiency. None of us will ever be wholly self-sufficient – but to be able to say that it doesn’t matter if you can afford shoes this year because you can repair last year’s boots, or to not have to spend much of your money on food means that you have a much better chance of covering that emergency medical bill or the property taxes.

But these things alone are not sufficient. One’s self-sufficiency can be taken away too easily when we lose access to land. You can lower your standards to allow “poor but decent” but when we get to “filthy and rat infested” that’s not such a good idea. The only way to live in the world of ordinary human poverty is to live there in a world where your pocket isn’t picked constantly, where you aren’t the victim of endless resource conflicts, where your government doesn’t sell your future out. And the only way to be a nation of reasonably self-sufficient, ordinarily poor people living decently is this – to remember that the reason we use the word “ordinary” here is that there are a lot more of us peasants than there are of the powerful. The truth is that repressive governments, of the sort we have had and are rapidly entrenching are scary – but they never have enough troops, enough power to stand up against the unified dignity of those who are simply ordinary, and simply want enough. But that requires that we trust each other, that we work together, that we create the institutions of ordinary poverty, the ones that have fallen into disuse – Granges, Unions, Consumers Unions, neighborhoods, voting blocs, and larger groups that can be used to pull us together. These things too are ordinary and human – and it is getting to be time to build them.

Most of us have grown up in a ‘toy’ rich world, even the ‘poorest’ westerners who read this will have houses full of what is basically plastic crap. The ‘poverty’ that is coming for most of us is one of ‘things’ poverty, cash poverty, but not necessarily necessity poverty. Not if we prepare, embrace the changes, and do our utmost to form collective communities and cooperation with the people around us.

Share

Rx: depression

by John Michael Greer, on energybulletin.

Counterintuitive though it may seem, furthermore, a serious depression right now may just be the best thing that could happen to the United States. I don’t say this by way of passing judgment, or in the spirit of schadenfreude that seems to surround so many predictions of social catastrophe. Rather, a good many of the dysfunctions that are dragging America to ruin will be immediately unsustainable in a time of depression, and a certain amount of economic suffering now could spare the American people a far worse experience later on. Here are some examples.

1. The End of American Empire

Right now America is as addicted to empire as any inner-city crackhead to cocaine. We support the world’s most bloated military, with troops and bases in more than a hundred countries, in order to enforce a global economic order that allows the 5% of the world’s people who live in the United States to use roughly a third of the world’s resources. At the same time, empires are costly pets, and ours – like every other empire in history – is becoming an economic burden our nation can no longer support; at the same time, the drastic decrease in US living standards that would follow the end of American empire is a political time bomb nobody wants to touch. Caught in that dilemma, the United States seems determined to follow the usual course of past empires, allowing its imperial commitments to drag it down.

A depression, however, would force the issue. In the midst of economic collapse, the United States would be no more able to maintain a global military presence than Russia was after its own collapse. The troops would have to come home – not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the whole far-flung web of US military bases – and resources now being drained by the incubus of empire would be available for more constructive tasks, such as preparing for the onset of peak oil.

Anything that slows the empire’s ability to enslave and plunder has to be seen as a good thing. Provided you are prepared….

Share

Ceramic and Rocket Stoves – more heat for less wood

Ceramic Stoves (example of a Ceramic Stove), or Kakkelovn, were first designed in Scandinavia in 1767, and have been a feature of homes and palaces ever since. Using some ingenious designing, a fairly small amount of wood can heat a room (or several) for 24 hours.

What makes it so efficient is that the wood is burnt around 1000 degrees Celsius, which is enough to ensure the only combustion products are steam and carbon dioxide as all the smoke is burnt off too. A metal stove would be damaged at this temperature, and so has to burn at a lower, more inefficient temperature. The flue gases from this hot burn are then diverted into several channels in the masonry body above the stove, with the flames and gases travelling up and down 3 times before exiting in the chimney. By this time the gases are below 200 degrees, having lost most of the heat into the masonry bulk. From a 1 – 2 hour burn, the whole stove will radiate heat for 24 hours. They’re also not bad to look at!

It is well worth considering to use one of these of you’re building or renovating a house with sustainability in mind – one of these stoves would require in Britain between 300 and 400 willows at 2m spacing on a short rotation coppice, so around an acre or a bit less for those with land to spare. It’s not recommended to build one yourself – they’re fairly complex to get built right! A company like the Ceramic Stove Company in Oxford or similar are experienced in installing them, although in future it would be beneficial if local craftsmen knew how to build these and install them en masse.

For the rest of us and for cooking, a smaller Rocket Stove might be more appropriate. These also burn a small amount of wood – often twigs or waste – at very high temperatures to achieve maximum efficiency. Designed for arid countries with little fuel and with problems of smoke on homes, they can be built small and simple or more complex depending on the situation, as long as a few principles of dimensions are observed. This is a good site to start, but there are plenty of other variations (such as this camping version) on the internet.

If we are to survive and adapt to tough times coming as civilisation declines, we need these sort of ingenious designs, in this case for heating and cooking, to make the best use of scarce resources, and make as little impact as possible on the earth.

Share

an open letter from an indigenous woman to sarah palin

Reprinted from CarolynBaker.net.

Daughter of the Earth ~

I speak from the heart of my indigenous grandmothers. I want to share my concern with and for you, your family, and our country. We have only three choices in our lives ~ to act from Love; to act from Fear, or not to act at all.

The day you were chosen to be John McCain’s running mate, I decided to find out who you are. I looked up your voting record at http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin_VoteMatch.htm

I read your voting record, and my heart plummeted into a well of deep grief. We have the opportunity to co-create a reality that respects all people and belief systems; all living beings; to explore and use alternative energies that will not harm the earth; to feed all the peoples of the earth; to address an economic system that is not and has not worked for many years. I would hope that you, and all our government officials, would be looking for ways to accomplish these things.

Yet, you are suing the U.S. government to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for Big Oil. And you are backing a senseless and hopeless war that is being fought only to gain more oil.

Jesus, your teacher and saviour, taught peace, harmony, balance and unconditional love for all. When you proclaim Christianity, what I hear is a need to dominate the Earth and All Our Relations out of fear, greed, and avarice – the ‘business as usual’ mentality which has so harmed us all in the last eight years (to say nothing of the centuries before).

When you say “the war in Iraq is a task sent from God”, I question your authority to speak for the Creator, and I hear the same kind of mentality that guided Adolph Hitler (April 12, 1922), who said, “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a Fighter. It points me to the man who, once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews (substitute: Muslim, Native American, Asian, non-Christian) for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s turth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish (Muslim, Black, Indian, Hispanic, Asian, non-Christian fundamentalist) poison.

Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before – the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago – a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish (Muslim, Black, Indian, Hispanic, Asian, non-Christian fundamentalist) people. ”

And, when you proclaim the Iraq war ‘a task from God’, I hear the same misguided belief systems of the fanatical Muslim sects that proclaim ‘jihad’, a ‘holy war’. HOLY and War do not belong in the same sentence – a ‘holy war’ is an oxymoron promoted by fanatical bigots who believe only in their own supremacy. I cannot condone such beliefs, and, unless you want to take us back into the dark ages of the Inquisition and the Crusades, I pray that you will look at your own beliefs.

You claim that “We are about to win the war in Iraq”. I question where you got your information. When Bill Clinton left office, we were at -0- national debt – now we are trillions of dollars in debt. . . and no end in sight. To say nothing of the thousands of lives lost on both sides, due to Big Oil’s need to perpetuate itself. This is not a ‘holy war’ . . . it is
a war of greed. John McCain brought up his experience in Vietnam – one more war fought for the wrong reasons. You’re too young to remember, but many of us do remember. Have we learned nothing in the last forty years??

As I read your opinions and the actions you have taken in your short termas governor, I am shocked and appalled, and my heart hurts. You are a mother and grandmother-to-be, yet you are against abortion under any circumstance. Apparently, you’d rather see children all over the world starve to death within a few months of birth because their parents can’t afford to feed them, or a mother who beats or throws a child into the garbage because all she can see is the face of the man who raped her.

You don’t want any gun control, even though children the ages of yours are killing each other in cities all over the U.S. because guns are so easily accessible to them. Sarah, what if it was one of your children killed by one of those children with guns? Would you still say, “Guns don’t kill people – only people kill people?”

When I listened to your speeches, I don’t hear one possible solution to the oil crisis; the war in Iraq; the economic crisis facing our nation. I don’t hear anything about better schools, or healthcare for all, or ways to balance the national debt. I hear ego and arrogance from you; white supremacy backed by fanatical fundamentalist beliefs; the competitive need to slam the opponent so you can ‘win’ above all else. I do not appreciate the Republican’s “Perception Management” team ‘spinning’ lies into ‘truths’ for the gullible American publics’ consumption.

My question to you, Sarah, is where is your heart? Where is your compassion, mercy, and the desire to uplift all humanity? Where is your respect for people of other cultures, religions, races? Where is your desire to find true answers to all the challenges our nation is facing at this present moment? You bandy the word ‘change’ around, but I haven’t heard one real word about what you intend to do. At some point, if your voting record doesn’t change, indigenous people around the world may start calling you “Daughter-who-rapes-the-earth”.

As I looked at the crowd at the GOP convention, I noticed very few people of color. Your husband comes from indigenous peoples. In some secret place, his heart must be full of tears and terror.

People of Color – First Peoples, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans – I call on you to look beneath the rhetoric. See the flim-flam of sympathy and self-righteous white supremacist, racist, fanatical religionist ‘patriotism’. Understand that NONE of the true
issues are being addressed, because McCain/Palin have no answers!! Call for an honest vote count – no “lost” ballots; no “mis-counts”. . . we all suspected the last election was bogus – it’s time to make sure we have a real election now.

My prayer for you, Sarah, is that you learn the true meaning of Love, Service, Humility, Compassion and Mercy. I pray that through this heart opening, you will begin to feel the grief of the world, and all our ancestors. I pray that feeling this pain will level you to the ground, and make it possible for you to examine every belief you’ve ever held and discard those that do not serve Truth and Love.

And my prayer for my country is that you aren’t allowed to ‘win’ this election. At this time, we need leaders who are open to a new way of viewing the world; leaders who are willing to stop greed and corporate corruption; leaders who will co-create balance and harmony with all. We are moving toward an enlightened age – God willing, we will not fall back into the Dark Ages.

Perhaps, Sarah, in another ten years, if your heart opens and you come to understand a larger picture than the narrow-minded bigotry you presently sustain, you would be a good Servant of the People. In the meantime, the heart of the indigenous peoples will pray for that opening and pray that our country is saved from you and your current belief system.

In love and blessing

An Indigenous Woman

Share

dances with wood: life with my cookstove

Very informative article from Sharon Astyk about wood-fired cook stoves.

Why choose a cookstove? We have both a cookstove and a heating stove, although they only run simultaneously on unusually cold days or when we have guests enough to need to heat the whole house. During much of the year, the cookstove is our primary heat source, particularly in the early spring and late autumn, when the worst of winter’s cold abates, but it is still chilly enough to need a source of heat. We haven’t yet started the stove for the autumn this year – since wood smoke is polluting, we try not to use it when it isn’t truly necessary. But I’m looking forward to going back to dancing with wood.

If you are trying to decide whether to buy a cookstove or a conventional heating stove, it is worth considering what your priorities are. Do you already live in a climate where you can use a solar oven or outdoor masonry oven most of the time (ie, somewhere sunny, fairly dry and warm?) Then you probably don’t need a cookstove. Do you have trees on your property or lots of sustainably harvested and carefully managed forest in the area, so that wood makes sense at all?

Do you cook much? Can or preserve? If you live alone and rarely cook, I would go for the more efficient wood heating stove – remember, you can cook on one of those as well – you can put a pot of soup on the top of the stove, and even get or make a sheet metal oven to go on top of it that will allow you to bake. It isn’t as precise, easy to control or as large a surface, but it can be done. On the other hand, if you live in a large household, preserve a lot and cook from scratch most of the time, a big flat hot surface and oven going all the time might be a huge blessing. Also, where does your cooking energy come from? If you are cooking now with coal powered electric, replacing that stove with a cookstove might make a big dent in your emissions.

How much is cost an issue? What kind of stoves are available to you? New cookstoves are often a bit more expensive than new conventional woodstoves of similar heating ability. If buying an older stove, be careful with what you are buying – older stoves of both kinds may be heavily polluting and inefficient. Used stoves are often available, but make sure you know what you are getting, and that they check out for a good tight gasket seal and are in good condition. Also think about the costs and impacts of the wood you are using. If you live in a forested area, or can manage your own woodlot or track how wood is harvested locally, wood might make sense. In an area without a lot of woodland, where wood has to be trucked long distances, perhaps a stove using another fuel would be wiser. Many woodstoves can be adapted to use pellets or corn, but I’m not aware of a pellet/corn basket that would fit the smaller firebox of a cookstove – although such a thing may well exist.

How often are you prepared to tend things? A cookstove necessarily has a smaller firebox than most woodstoves, simply because a lot of the space available is used for the oven – so while some stoves can be banked and kept going overnight, many cookstoves can’t. Certainly, when you are cooking, if you need precise temperatures, you’ll find that you need to be able to be around, to feed the stove more often and keep an eye on things – it isn’t quite like setting the oven to 350 and walking away. It probably doesn’t require as much attention as you assume it does, but it does require more than electric or gas. Also, are you prepared to learn how to keep your chimneys clean, prevent fires, cut wood, etc…

Finally, how worried are you about having a source of heat and cooking power that doesn’t require electricity or natural gas. Since we have regular power outages in our rural neighborhood anyway, it is just commonsense not to depend on the electric lines for our heat (our oil furnace requires electricity to be used) or cooking. If you aren’t worried about your fossil fuel supplies, or have a better, more locally appropriate alternative, maybe a cookstove isn’t for you. The same would be true, even if you have these worries, if you don’t expect to be home to check on the stove regularly.

Hopefully, anyone switching to wood heating and cooking will remember the all important tree planting. Trees we plant now will be our wood supplies in 20 years plus. Think ahead!

Share

remember the Patriot Act….?

Asks Sharon Astyk.

Ok, anyone remember the Patriot Act, you know that thing that Congress signed because we’d just had a great big disaster and everyone was scared and accomodating because they didn’t know what else to do? Remember how nobody really even read it, and it didn’t do jackshit to reduce the problem of terrorism, but it did do a whole lot to reduce democracy in the US? That is, it worked out to ensure that we and our grandchildren will be suffering from the undermining of every principle we valued, but did nothing useful. Sound vaguely familiar? Guess what – we’ve got a new Patriot Act.

It is called the Federal Bail Out. And guess what – it hands to Hank Paulson and a few other unelected people huge powers, destructive powers, that, of course, we know that they will use for good. Now where does it get those powers? Through the abrogation of the constitution and the ripping them out of your hands.

And we’re getting the same message that went with the patriot act – pass it now, or disaster will befall us, we’re all doomed if we actually read it, and don’t just sign it into law. It comes with an appropriate “scaring the shit out of fairly dumb political figures” bit (remember Hillary saying that if we knew what she knew about WMDs, we’d be for the war too?) Christopher Dodd and my own Senator Schumer were practically drooling with fear after their private viewing of the Wall Street situation. They won’t, of course, tell us what they were told, but it was so horrible that we should definitely allocate untold billions more to bailing out the rich.

Now here’s the thing – bailing them out won’t fix the problem. The markets lost 3 trillion + last week – 700 billion isn’t going to fix the problem. Neither is the next 700 billion. It won’t cover the losses in the housing market that is still declining, it won’t make your house worth what it was, it won’t do much except send foreign investors running for the exits. In short, it won’t save us from a Great Depression. Whatever Chuck Schumer is waking up in a cold sweat about, it is too late to avoid it becoming reality.

But what we’ve got here is more Shock Doctrine economics, more destruction, more rapine stealing of democracy at the moment that things are falling apart. And we can go into this crisis in one of two ways – either with all the power that we can hold in our hands, the memory of what is good about America, and a vision to put those pieces back together and with what remains of our country’s assets used to build something new, something that could potentially last us for generations. Or we can go in to our homemade disaster with less power, fewer resources, more thrown down the drain, less of America left. Our choice. Actually, odds are there is no choice – this will pass, and it will be too late, and besides making do with what we’ve got less in a massive Depression, in an energy poor society, we’ll also have to try to reclaim what we’ve got. But the thing is, it isn’t passed yet, and we honestly have no choice about trying to resist – because it will only be worse later.

Share

the coming expansion

A great article by Ran Prieur from 2002!

When you hear “the economy,” think “corporate rule”: A strong economy means strong corporate rule; economic collapse means the collapse of corporate rule. It’s not exactly true, and it’s false in times and places where corporations are not dominant, but right now it comes a lot closer to the truth than the usual background assumption that what’s good for “the economy” is good for people.

I know: A good economy means you can get a job, and in a really good economy you can get such a good job that if you work 70 hours a week for years you can buy a nice house in a nice place where you never have to deal with those disturbing poor people who are too lazy to work 70 hours a week, who you never learned to relate to because you’re so busy in the economy, and then you can die lonely and bewildered in your big empty secure house.

Doesn’t it make you angry that you need “the economy” to have the alleged privilege of doing what someone tells you to do all day so you don’t starve and freeze on the streets? Aren’t you infuriated by your humiliating dependence on a system that gives you no participation in power? “Live free or die” is easy to say in an imaginary scenario of security agents kicking down your door, but whenever I suggest that economic collapse is a step in the right direction, I’m accused of being anti-human, of wishing for starvation and death, by people who are effectively saying “Please, please, let us live as frightened powerless dependents, anything to not die.”

We are in an ugly, awful situation. Better avert your eyes. Here’s a nice parable: For countless thousands of years the people of Earthor lived in happy villages, getting everything they needed through small, consent-based communities where everyone was a friend and everything was out in the open. Then they were conquered by evil giants!

Now, everything the people made, every house and every bit of food, was given to the giants, and the giants allocated it to keep themselves in power: the people who obeyed the giants the best, and did their most evil work, got the most stuff; and the people who refused to labor for the giants at all were harassed and isolated and sometimes outright killed; and most people in the middle were kept always wanting more than they got to keep them always busy.

Now one day a hero rose among the people and said, “Let us kill the giants.” But then some sensible-sounding voices said, “Without the giants, who will provide our food?” Actually these were people who worked closely with the giants, and knew that if the system changed they would lose all their stuff. But other people listened to the hero, so the giants had to come kill them all, and everything went back to normal, except the giants got even stronger and meaner.

But then another hero appeared, and by this time the people hated the giants so much that the giant-collaborators couldn’t stop them, and they did it — they killed all the giants! But they had been living under the giants for so long now that they didn’t know how to live differently. Some people managed to start awkward consent-based villages with tedious “community meetings” ruined by everyone’s emotional problems from living under the giants. But these groups fell apart or were taken over, and soon enough, strangely, they all found themselves once again ruled by evil giants. Except now the giants were subtle and persuasive, and the people loved them, or at least they thought a world without giants was grossly unrealistic, and they blamed their unhappiness on other people.

And so it went. But look! The giants cannot stay the same size and survive. To live they must constantly grow. They even have a saying: “Any evil giant that doesn’t grow dies.” But now they’re getting so big that their bulk is all dead bones cracking under their unimaginable weight, so big that they can do nothing but blunder around clumsily, ravenously consuming everything in reach to grow still bigger. And their hunger has turned half the land of Earthor into gray smoky deserts. Anyone who looks can see it coming: The giants are going to run out of food, and die.

What then? Let’s return now to the less deeply nested fantastic world of our own Earth. The giant patterns that command our labor under threat of death or prison, that manage and distribute the products of our labor to keep themselves in place, are breaking down. In the last two weeks the price of “stocks” — tokens of collaboration with the ruling system — has fallen hard, minus a few temporary half-recoveries caused by covert buying spikes. The “economy” is dying, and anyone who’s been looking has seen it coming for years.

The propaganda industry will blame corporate greed, as if this could have been avoided if corporations weren’t greedy and fish didn’t swim. In fact, collapse is the only possible result of an economy that survives by taking more from its environment than it gives. In this case the environment is not only the Earth, which is running out of “resources,” but the human species, which is running out of willingness to participate in a coercive and disempowering system.

I’m not calling for civilization to fall and kill billions of people in ways other than old age, any more than I’m calling for winter to come and kill a lot of plants. I’m just noticing it coming and declaring that it’s perfectly natural. Liberals fantasize about a “soft landing,” maybe involving a benevolently oppressive global government implementing a hundred years of strict forced contraception and strict forced resource frugality. What’s soft about that? It sounds like going into a cold swimming pool slowly and painfully for 20 minutes instead of just jumping in. We’re all going to be dead in a hundred years anyway. Let’s some of us die young so all of us don’t have to live in some eco-puritan dystopia.

I’m not joking — I’m just refusing to fetishize dying. We’re programmed to think of dying as the ultimate worst thing, as the negation of living, when really it’s a normal friendly part of living, and what’s negating our living is our fear of dying or physical damage. Our culture whips this fear into an insane frenzy, not just to keep us enslaved, but because our culture is an evil mass consciousness, a vampire that cultivates and feeds on our emotional contractiveness.

Our contractiveness is the same thing as our “progress,” our descent on engines of disconnection into an artificial hell of computer spreadsheets and tax laws, pavement and cars that turn the grass under your feet into a mile-a-minute green blur, science that turns your view of the sky into mathematical formulas in windowless rooms. But everything that contracts must expand.

The contraction we call the Roman Empire cut down the forests of Europe. When it finally relaxed, the forests grew back, but the people of Europe only grew back a little before they shrank again — self-sufficient rural communities devolved into feudal estates, which got sucked into larger and larger centralized nation-states, which are now falling into the vortex of the unprecedented power-sucking abilities of global corporations. We’re as deep now as we’ve ever been, and I’m not sure, but I think we’re out of room to go deeper, unless they figure out how to trap our consciousness inside computers.

I think the next time we expand, we’re going to follow through. I suspect that humans are smarter now than ever — that intelligence is the default human condition, and stupidity has to be manufactured, and our intelligence has been growing stronger and stronger, invisibly staying a step behind advances in stupidity-manufacturing techniques, the same way weeds and bacteria have been growing resistant to high-tech poisons. The controlling interests seem to be winning, but the lid’s about to blow off, and when it does, those of us who don’t die of starvation or disease will see a blossoming of human power like nothing in history.

Here’s what I mean by “human power”: Right now if you need a place to live, you can’t just find a place and live there, no matter how responsible you are. Places are all “owned,” and not by people but by contractive patterns using people, by banks and businesses and money-grasping habits of individuals. You have to apply to these alleged “owners,” submit to degrading rituals, accept permission to occupy a place, not change it in any important way, and pay a huge monthly sum of money — a billion rivers of money running from the poor to the rich. And the only thing you get in return, what you’re actually tricked into demanding, is to have your power/responsibility reduced even further by depending on the “owners” to make necessary repairs.

When we get our power back, you’ll just pick an appropriate place and live there, and build or maintain shelter that fits the skills of you or your group. And in the transition to this, we’ll survive by sleeping on each other’s couches, by filling up our houses and learning to live in the same space with other people again instead of buying satanic isolation. We’ll turn our lawns into vegetable gardens and feed ourselves with our own hands instead of depending on money and supermarkets. Our alleged poverty will lead us to rebuild community and autonomy that were destroyed by our alleged wealth.

Link by link, we will stop depending on and answering to higher powers and begin depending on and answering to the lower powers of our bodies and the Earth. The Earth is us too, and when we get our power back, monoculture farms will be set free to be grassland and forest again, in which humans will live in deep and enduring symbiosis. I’m not saying we’ll all be hunter/gatherers, but some of us will, and at the very least that economy is the necessary safety net above which we will try other things.

When we get our power back, the homeless / jobless / moneyless will reach a critical mass where the police can no longer stop us and we know it. If an eagle wants more space, it fights a competitor, and typically neither bird is badly hurt, and both have the experience of engaging the world with their energy. This is not “violence” but a vigorous physical way of resolving conflict; it’s not about control or extermination but balance. In all the known universe only civilized authorities do not work this way, do not tolerate physically fighting them or running from them, do not give any options but total submission or death. That’s why all of us who have not been killed are full of suppressed rage. And if we channel this rage wisely, we will not exterminate the authorities so they can escape and come back in the form of us; we will hold them in the one position they cannot endure, of living as equals with other life, until they dissolve.

Totalitarian control structures are fascinating: The police not only deny us power — they deny it to themselves, believing that they lack the authority to compromise because they’re “just doing their job” for someone else. But if you look up the chain, no one has any power — even the highest elite are powerlessly following a script written by a financial balance or a country or a warped sense of “order,” a program taking control so it can take more control so it can…

This system is an anti-system, a multilevel negation, built of blocks of lack of power, lack of responsibility, lack of awareness. This raises mind-bending questions: How do you destroy a void? And if nobody has any real power, where does the power go?

I think the answer is that power isn’t actually being taken but being blocked, in nonhumans by simply killing them and in humans by socialization that begins in infancy, punishing people for having a will of their own, for being aware, for channeling any bottom-up power, until by age 30 most of us are barely alive, almost as Philip K. Dick wrote: “Not a person but a sort of walking, hiding symptom of their way of life.”

But blocked power just keeps building up. It wants to flow up through our cells, our muscles, our blood. If we keep holding it back it’s going to explode! That’s not good. We need to learn to focus it, like a rocket focuses an explosion to push it into orbit, like a plant focuses growth into the roots before the stalk. The famous biblical line is a mistranslation: The word was used to describe good horses, not their submissiveness but their ability to focus their attention and respond instantly to the slightest cues.

The disciplined will inherit the Earth.

Inspiring stuff. That homeless person is a member of your community, why not stop, offer to share a few minutes over a cup of tea in a local cafe, and start forging links with those who havent been so able to function in this nightmare system….

Share

10 things you should know about bush’s trillion dollar fleecing plan

Here’s a roundup of what opponents of the Bush-Paulson plan are saying.

On Alternet.  Wake up America!

1. Shock Doctrine: Profiting from Crisis

Robert Borosage of Campaign for America’s Future invokes Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine in asking whether we’re going to “get fleeced in this crisis” …

Call it extortion. Every American is told to ante up $2,000–an estimated $700 billion in all–to bail out the banks from their bad bets, or they’ll bring down the entire economy.

In a speculative frenzy that allowed the Masters of the Universe to pocket millions personally, the banks filled their coffers with toxic paper that no one wants to buy. Now they sensibly don’t want to lend money to each other, since no one knows if the other is solvent. So they go on strike, and threaten to trigger a global depression, if they don’t get rescued.

The bailout will happen simply to avoid that depression. But depressions have some salutary effects – the scoundrels go belly up, the weakest get purged, and in the wake of the disaster, people demand strict regulation of the money lenders to keep their greed and predatory behavior in check, and government spends money on the real economy to put people back to work.

2. Has a “Consensus” Really Formed Around the Idea That Something Must Be Done?

Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press reports that “economists” — implying, troublingly, all economists — see the Bush Bailout as”Necessary.”

But Atrios — economist Duncan Black’s blog handle — has some questions about how everyone got on the same page so quickly …

It’s fascinating to watch how easily consensus is manufactured. A few days ago elite opinion seemed to be cheering Paulson’s “no bailout” line, and now they’re cheering a trillion bucks thrown down the crapper …

It’s unrealistic to imagine that I’d be able to really get enough honest information to have an informed opinion, but I spent some time thinking about what question all the Very Serious People should, at a minimum, want answered before they start cheering on [any] plans. This is what I came up with:

What changed between Monday and Friday? What new information did you have at the end of the week that you did not have at the beginning of the week which caused you to go from $0 to $1 trillion?

And, no, tumbling stock prices or babble about “deteriorating credit conditions” don’t count.

3. Is This Even Legal?

The Constitutionality of the plan is being hotly debated, according to Frank James, writing on the Chicago Trib’s blog:

Troubling to many critics is the breathtaking extraconstitutionality of the proposal which would give the Treasury secretary unusual powers that couldn’t be countermanded by Congress or the courts.

That appears on its face to violate the Constitution’s assertion of a balance of powers where no one branch is unchecked by the others.

James goes on to quote Alan Blinder, “former Federal Reserve vice chair and normally a mild-mannered, live-and-let-live Princeton University economics professor,” who said Paulson should be booted out of office for his proposal …

“I’m speaking now as one of the earliest advocates of creating an institution like this, many, many months ago. And it’s a crying shame to see the way the Treasury has written this. I think the secretary of the Treasury should be dismissed, frankly. … Asking for the authority to buy anything, with no review, with no court review, with no limits practically as to quantity or scope, with almost no congressional oversight. We have something more precious at stake than our precious financial system and that’s our precious Constitution. And frankly, if I were a member of Congress, having advocated for this for nine or ten months, I would vote against this unless it’s changed, dramatically…”

What’s Blinder talking about? Section 8 of the draft legislation released on Saturday reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


Sounds pretty like some pretty unbalanced powers to us.

And who’d be the new Emperor of the U.S. economy? McClatchy’s Kevin Hall explains:

Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today’s financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department.

[...]

With Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn’t come with enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to approve the administration’s draft legislation that would leave to Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to hire to help him do so.

4. Some Lawmakers Are Angry

The reality is that there’s less than a consensus that the “Paulson” plan is the way to go. Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller quotes an angry but (safely) anonymous Democratic Representative venting some spleen …

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can’t be any “add ons,” or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don’t really want to trigger a world wide depression (that’s not hyperbole, that’s a distinct possibility), but I’m not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second “stimulus” package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don’t want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

5. Opposition Across the Political Spectrum

And the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s not sure if it’ll work

So, here’s my problem: what we have now are a bunch of financial institutions in trouble, because they’re highly leveraged, and have mortgage-related assets on their books. And they can’t raise cash because nobody wants to buy those assets. The Paulson plan will in effect create a market for toxic paper, thereby supposedly unfreezing the markets.

But what if the institutions are fundamentally broke, even if the liquidity squeeze is relieved? …

…Suppose that Hank Paulson does his reverse auction, and it turns out that the Treasury’s price for toxic waste is 40 cents on the dollar. Even so, [banks are] still underwater. So what does Treasury do then?

One answer, I suppose, is that we think that there aren’t too many firms in that position — and that those that will still fail, even with the Paulson Plan, aren’t going to disrupt the markets too much when they go down. But do we know that?

In a subsequent column, Krugman says that he agrees that doing something to prop up the financial sector is necessary, but he opposes the “blank check” — the lack of oversight built into the plan. In a rare instance, William Kristol agrees with Krugman. After saying that this is no time for ideological devotion to the “free markets,” Kristol asks …

…is the administration’s proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I’ve been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I’ve spoken with who aren’t at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right — or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

6. Do Joe and Jane Tax-Payer Really Have to Foot the Bill?

There’s lot’s of talk about how the legislation can be improved if it is passed. The WaPo’s Sebastian Mallaby thinks it unnecessary to use public dollars to boost ailing banks’ liquidity:

Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don’t do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don’t want to signal weakness and they don’t want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.

7. What Would a More Progressive Bailout Look Like?

Economist Dean Baker offers up some “Progressive Conditions for a Bailout” at TPM:

Principles to Guide the Bailout

1) Financial institutions should be forced to endure the bulk of the losses with taxpayer funds only used where absolutely necessary to sustain the orderly operation of the financial system.

2) The bailout must be designed to minimize the opportunity for gaming.

3) The bailout should be designed to minimize moral hazard.

4) In the case of delinquent mortgages that come into the government’s possession, there should be an effort to work out an arrangement that allows the homeowner to remain in her house as owner. If this proves impossible, then former homeowners should be allowed to remain in their homes as renters paying the market rent. This should be done even if it leads to losses to the government.

5) There should be serious efforts to severely restrict executive compensation at any companies that directly benefit from the bailout.

He also offers up some ideas for restructuring the financial system so, as they say, read the rest.

8. Could the Plan Get Better Through Negotiation?

It appears to us that the first draft of the bill was so extreme, that it veered so far towards Mussolini’s definition of fascism — a perfect blend of state and corporate power — that it was intended as a starting point from which the administration could offer its opponents some concessions and still end up with something that’s terrible for Main Street.

Along those lines, the Wall Street Journal reports …

The Bush administration has conceded several changes to its rescue plan for the troubled banking industry, including agreeing to compensation limits for bank chief executives taking part in the plan and the need for more help for homeowners facing foreclosure, a leading House Democrat said Monday.

Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Rep. Barney Frank said the Treasury also agreed to Democrats’ idea that the federal government should receive warrants to take an equity stake in financial firms in exchange for the government purchasing toxic assets from them.

Congress may raise the cost of a $700 billion market-rescue deal by adding a new economic stimulus plan to benefit taxpayers, according to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. (Sept. 22)

Senate Democrats also want to add tough new measures, including a provision that would allow the government to take shares of any financial institution that participates in the program.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Monday, “we will not simply hand over a $700-billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome.” But we’ve heard that before … we’ll see.

Of course, there is a chance that a wave of resistance coming from across the political spectrum could stop the deal, or that it might get mired in partisan bickering — sometimes “gridlock” is good.

9. Foreign Banks Can Cash in Too

Or perhaps the fact that U.S. tax-payers look like they might also end up bailing out foreign banks will end up being a fly in the ointment.

Now, the U.S. bailout looks as if it is going global, too, a move that could raise its cost and intensify scrutiny by Congress and critics.

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic U.S. mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as U.S. banks.

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson indicated in a series of appearances on TV talk shows that an original proposal introduced Saturday had been widened. “It’s a distinction without a difference whether it’s a foreign or a U.S. one,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

He’s right, in a way. There are no U.S. or foreign mega-banks — just multinational financial institutions with headquarters at home or somewhere abroad. If one accepts the logic of the plan at all, it might as well extend to multinationals with foreign-sounding names. The rabbit hole is only so deep, and we’re already way down it.

10. Is This Signaling a Decline in American Power?

According to Reuters, this all seems to be making the Chinese think that a A Different World is Possible …

Threatened by a “financial tsunami,” the world must consider building a financial order no longer dependent on the United States, a leading Chinese state newspaper said on Wednesday.

The commentary in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily said the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., “may augur an even larger impending global ‘financial tsunami’.”

[...]

“The eruption of the U.S. sub-prime crisis has exposed massive loopholes in the United States’ financial oversight and supervision,” writes the commentator, Shi Jianxun.

“The world urgently needs to create a diversified currency and financial system and fair and just financial order that is not dependent on the United States.”

Share