Revolution number nine
By the living daylights it shall be! The forest moves against the king!
Counter-counter-counter Revolution
by Wes Simon Saturday November 05, 2005 at 09:00 PM Melbourne Indymedia.
A NeoLiberal on every block, a social and/or environmental crisis on every corner, resistance is fragmented, dispersed and disempowered.
Richard Neville's article on 60's counter culture left me wondering if a successful counter attack can be mounted against the elites who effectively control the supposedly democratic western civilisation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/grandchildren-of-the-revolution/2005/11/03/1130823343020.html
Many of the victories and incremental advances that were secured in the sixties have been systematically reversed by conservative forces. The initial gains of the 60's cultural revolt were achieved simply because they were the products of an unexpected and unconventional internal revolt. While external rebellions and challenges to the Wests global hegemony are easily crushed a rebellion from within, by it's own offspring and class peers to boot, presented unprecedented obstacles to the existing powers.
A further complication in responding to the crisis for the ruling class at that time was the widespread notion of civil society. Priviledge in that era was accompanied by obligation and a sense of public duty, that obligation was to be responsive to the needs and desires of the broader society. The obligation was derived from a recognition that the priviledge of the elite was only possible with at least some degree of cooperation from underclasses.
The most noticable, and indeed most significant, change implemented in response to the cultural upheavel of the 60's was to sever any sense of obligation and public duty from priviledge. Of course such a radical departure from conventional ideas of social order needed some form of camouflage. The camouflage came in the form of an ideology that posited that unfettered priviledge for the elite was of benefit to everyone.
Where the original architects of laissez-faire capitalism had, through trial and error and over time, acknowledged its flaws and limitations and had, to some extent, accepted the need to have the concept and protocols of civil society incorporated into the mechanisms of the market the new "Neo-Liberal" extremist ideologues attempted to eliminate all and any regulatory interference in national and international markets and the pursuit of profit.
In response to the demands made during the 60's of those in power and authority, new ideas and techniques were added to the already daunting anti-democratic arsenal of these free market extremists. NeoLiberals bought ever greater influence in the political process and eventually came to dominate it. Once the political process was controlled it was only a matter of maintaining a facade of democratic process.
In the sixties politicians would respond to public opinion and campaigns because that was the obvious response from a person who was supposed to be representing the people. In the Neo-Liberal age the trick for politicians was to appear to consult with, and respond to, the public while still implementing the will of their NeoLiberal masters.
The political benefits of charade consultation processes and appearing responsive were twofold. First, public anger could be immediately assuaged while they were invited to participate in the political process in a "controlling the crisis" phase. Politicians appear to be of good faith and responsive to constituencies.
Second, the consultation process itself is a means of exhausting opposition. Individuals and even relatively sophisticated NGO's can be worn down with time and resource consuming processes. Egos are massaged, emotional and intellectual intensity and interest are dissipated, resources are depleted and all the while battalions of government "experts" and mercenary "guns" from vested interests time waste, obfuscate, confuse, bludgeon and baffle with bullshit. By the time the almost inevitable pro-business/vested interest decision is delivered opponents options boil down to mounting a suicide mission or walking away.
Anyone who has been active on any issue in the last twenty years will know what I mean. So when Neville optimistically recognises similarities between the public mood of the sixties and now I cannot share his hopeful mood. Where the 60's revolution was conceived and gestated in a repressive and repressed climate todays opposition is expected to arise from within an all singing, all dancing orgy of hedonism.
Western societies are bombarded with a relentless and endless stream of NeoLiberal propaganda. Punctuated with "delectable titillations for the consumers delight" are the NeoLiberal mantras of greed, fear and division. As media empires consolidated the message was homogenised and simplified by thinktanks at NeoLiberal central command. Propaganda works, the diet of fear and hate messages edges the public into manageable, jingoistic herds of hedonistic but fearful automatons. We are told we are at war, we have been attacked, but NeoLiberals don't want us to know that they started the war, that this war is a inevitable, and intended, consequence of their actions.
The resistance to the NeoLiberal agenda, although sometimes substantial, even a majority in cases, is easily marginalised, ignored or dismissed by the NeoLiberal controlled media which swamps and pervades public consciousness. This allows politicians to patronise the public with platitudes about the "big picture", "priviledged information" and "the need for executive decision making". When propaganda fails to fully pave the way for NeoLiberals brute force succeeds.
Despite this widespread opposition to singular and collective NeoLiberal missions and objectives, NeoLiberal forces have seized the initiative and exploited priviledge and power to effectively stifle undesirable change or even rebellion. Luck and planning have carried the day for the NeoLiberals, the old world is out, their brave new world order is well and truly in and entrenched. It is difficult now to even imagine how the socio-political scene can be redesigned and transformed. Even the possibility of future insurrection is planned for. Armed, unarmed, violent, non-violent, all the conceivable extrapolations have been predicted and pre-empted.
A NeoLiberal on every block, a social &/or environmental crisis on every corner, resistance is fragmented, dispersed and disempowered.
One of the few developments in recent years that has presented positive possibilties is the internet. There is now a global village green. No longer are we restricted to a media diet dictated by our self-declared masters. We are hearing things they don't want us to hear and they are already making moves to control this form of media. While legislation may trail the technology now, it is only a matter of time before this ideas bazaar is patrolled by the establishments henchmen.
For instance, already the yes-men forward scouts are launching sorties into terrain like MIM. We hear these 'useful idiots' parroting their master's rhetoric and beating their master's war drums against Iran. Before they have even extracted themselves from the last bloody debacle they are chanting for innocent blood in a new conquest. This begs the question, just how much repetitive, hateful propaganda should we have to endure considering this is one of the few spaces open to, and created for, the expression of resistance to NeoLiberalism. Surely they have enough exposure without us having to share our space with such sneering, spiteful cretins and buffoons? Are we talking about marginalised or alternative voices here when they parrot and mimic the brainless slogans and themes of MSM?
Still the NeoLiberal lust is not sated and they are moving toward unprecedented and perverse measures to suppress even criticsm of their sacrosanct religion of and greed, war and fear.
Every time we ask ourselves, "How far will they make us go to stop them?", NeoLiberals move to further extremes and raise the ante so that we must consider more extreme measures to even have our voices heard. It is as if they are challenging us to take them on in the most calamitous fashion imaginable. This is the typical taunt of the bully who knows, or at least thinks, he has an unassailable position. It seems at times as if they are right. At other times I suspect their grandiose presumptions are as vulnerable and fragile as the veneer of civility that keeps the circus go-ers manageable is thin. They've had lucky breaks so far but a few false steps could see the NeoLiberals getting a hard and painful lesson.
The key to winning this struggle is having the right moves ready when the opportunity for giving the NeoLiberals a kick in the arse arises. To succeed, this revolt would not be built around impotent street theatre and bovine pantomimes, Gandhian whinge-ins resulting in savage state administered beatings for would-be Gandhis or massive street marches that move politics like mosquitos move elephants.
The objective of a revolt is not so much to destroy the system as to reasign priorities and realign consciousness of the ruling elite with the expectations of the masses. As NeoLiberals have used fear to control, fear would be used to control them. Fear for loss of personal priviledge would be preferred but fear for personal safety might be necessary. This revolution would not necessarily be bloodless.
The revolt would be based on decentralism and guerilla tactics.
Resistance would act autonomously as individual or collective units.
Success would depend on effectively compromising strategic targets.
Strategic targets would be chosen and prioritised according to efficacy of specific task in achieving collective aims.
Forward planning and preparation would be critical to success of revolt.
Be prepared, consider what you could do that would send the message loud and clear.
Think now what you can do to monkey wrench NeoLiberalism when the opportunity arises.
Carpe Diem
Counter-counter-counter Revolution
by Wes Simon Saturday November 05, 2005 at 09:00 PM Melbourne Indymedia.
A NeoLiberal on every block, a social and/or environmental crisis on every corner, resistance is fragmented, dispersed and disempowered.
Richard Neville's article on 60's counter culture left me wondering if a successful counter attack can be mounted against the elites who effectively control the supposedly democratic western civilisation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/grandchildren-of-the-revolution/2005/11/03/1130823343020.html
Many of the victories and incremental advances that were secured in the sixties have been systematically reversed by conservative forces. The initial gains of the 60's cultural revolt were achieved simply because they were the products of an unexpected and unconventional internal revolt. While external rebellions and challenges to the Wests global hegemony are easily crushed a rebellion from within, by it's own offspring and class peers to boot, presented unprecedented obstacles to the existing powers.
A further complication in responding to the crisis for the ruling class at that time was the widespread notion of civil society. Priviledge in that era was accompanied by obligation and a sense of public duty, that obligation was to be responsive to the needs and desires of the broader society. The obligation was derived from a recognition that the priviledge of the elite was only possible with at least some degree of cooperation from underclasses.
The most noticable, and indeed most significant, change implemented in response to the cultural upheavel of the 60's was to sever any sense of obligation and public duty from priviledge. Of course such a radical departure from conventional ideas of social order needed some form of camouflage. The camouflage came in the form of an ideology that posited that unfettered priviledge for the elite was of benefit to everyone.
Where the original architects of laissez-faire capitalism had, through trial and error and over time, acknowledged its flaws and limitations and had, to some extent, accepted the need to have the concept and protocols of civil society incorporated into the mechanisms of the market the new "Neo-Liberal" extremist ideologues attempted to eliminate all and any regulatory interference in national and international markets and the pursuit of profit.
In response to the demands made during the 60's of those in power and authority, new ideas and techniques were added to the already daunting anti-democratic arsenal of these free market extremists. NeoLiberals bought ever greater influence in the political process and eventually came to dominate it. Once the political process was controlled it was only a matter of maintaining a facade of democratic process.
In the sixties politicians would respond to public opinion and campaigns because that was the obvious response from a person who was supposed to be representing the people. In the Neo-Liberal age the trick for politicians was to appear to consult with, and respond to, the public while still implementing the will of their NeoLiberal masters.
The political benefits of charade consultation processes and appearing responsive were twofold. First, public anger could be immediately assuaged while they were invited to participate in the political process in a "controlling the crisis" phase. Politicians appear to be of good faith and responsive to constituencies.
Second, the consultation process itself is a means of exhausting opposition. Individuals and even relatively sophisticated NGO's can be worn down with time and resource consuming processes. Egos are massaged, emotional and intellectual intensity and interest are dissipated, resources are depleted and all the while battalions of government "experts" and mercenary "guns" from vested interests time waste, obfuscate, confuse, bludgeon and baffle with bullshit. By the time the almost inevitable pro-business/vested interest decision is delivered opponents options boil down to mounting a suicide mission or walking away.
Anyone who has been active on any issue in the last twenty years will know what I mean. So when Neville optimistically recognises similarities between the public mood of the sixties and now I cannot share his hopeful mood. Where the 60's revolution was conceived and gestated in a repressive and repressed climate todays opposition is expected to arise from within an all singing, all dancing orgy of hedonism.
Western societies are bombarded with a relentless and endless stream of NeoLiberal propaganda. Punctuated with "delectable titillations for the consumers delight" are the NeoLiberal mantras of greed, fear and division. As media empires consolidated the message was homogenised and simplified by thinktanks at NeoLiberal central command. Propaganda works, the diet of fear and hate messages edges the public into manageable, jingoistic herds of hedonistic but fearful automatons. We are told we are at war, we have been attacked, but NeoLiberals don't want us to know that they started the war, that this war is a inevitable, and intended, consequence of their actions.
The resistance to the NeoLiberal agenda, although sometimes substantial, even a majority in cases, is easily marginalised, ignored or dismissed by the NeoLiberal controlled media which swamps and pervades public consciousness. This allows politicians to patronise the public with platitudes about the "big picture", "priviledged information" and "the need for executive decision making". When propaganda fails to fully pave the way for NeoLiberals brute force succeeds.
Despite this widespread opposition to singular and collective NeoLiberal missions and objectives, NeoLiberal forces have seized the initiative and exploited priviledge and power to effectively stifle undesirable change or even rebellion. Luck and planning have carried the day for the NeoLiberals, the old world is out, their brave new world order is well and truly in and entrenched. It is difficult now to even imagine how the socio-political scene can be redesigned and transformed. Even the possibility of future insurrection is planned for. Armed, unarmed, violent, non-violent, all the conceivable extrapolations have been predicted and pre-empted.
A NeoLiberal on every block, a social &/or environmental crisis on every corner, resistance is fragmented, dispersed and disempowered.
One of the few developments in recent years that has presented positive possibilties is the internet. There is now a global village green. No longer are we restricted to a media diet dictated by our self-declared masters. We are hearing things they don't want us to hear and they are already making moves to control this form of media. While legislation may trail the technology now, it is only a matter of time before this ideas bazaar is patrolled by the establishments henchmen.
For instance, already the yes-men forward scouts are launching sorties into terrain like MIM. We hear these 'useful idiots' parroting their master's rhetoric and beating their master's war drums against Iran. Before they have even extracted themselves from the last bloody debacle they are chanting for innocent blood in a new conquest. This begs the question, just how much repetitive, hateful propaganda should we have to endure considering this is one of the few spaces open to, and created for, the expression of resistance to NeoLiberalism. Surely they have enough exposure without us having to share our space with such sneering, spiteful cretins and buffoons? Are we talking about marginalised or alternative voices here when they parrot and mimic the brainless slogans and themes of MSM?
Still the NeoLiberal lust is not sated and they are moving toward unprecedented and perverse measures to suppress even criticsm of their sacrosanct religion of and greed, war and fear.
Every time we ask ourselves, "How far will they make us go to stop them?", NeoLiberals move to further extremes and raise the ante so that we must consider more extreme measures to even have our voices heard. It is as if they are challenging us to take them on in the most calamitous fashion imaginable. This is the typical taunt of the bully who knows, or at least thinks, he has an unassailable position. It seems at times as if they are right. At other times I suspect their grandiose presumptions are as vulnerable and fragile as the veneer of civility that keeps the circus go-ers manageable is thin. They've had lucky breaks so far but a few false steps could see the NeoLiberals getting a hard and painful lesson.
The key to winning this struggle is having the right moves ready when the opportunity for giving the NeoLiberals a kick in the arse arises. To succeed, this revolt would not be built around impotent street theatre and bovine pantomimes, Gandhian whinge-ins resulting in savage state administered beatings for would-be Gandhis or massive street marches that move politics like mosquitos move elephants.
The objective of a revolt is not so much to destroy the system as to reasign priorities and realign consciousness of the ruling elite with the expectations of the masses. As NeoLiberals have used fear to control, fear would be used to control them. Fear for loss of personal priviledge would be preferred but fear for personal safety might be necessary. This revolution would not necessarily be bloodless.
The revolt would be based on decentralism and guerilla tactics.
Resistance would act autonomously as individual or collective units.
Success would depend on effectively compromising strategic targets.
Strategic targets would be chosen and prioritised according to efficacy of specific task in achieving collective aims.
Forward planning and preparation would be critical to success of revolt.
Be prepared, consider what you could do that would send the message loud and clear.
Think now what you can do to monkey wrench NeoLiberalism when the opportunity arises.
Carpe Diem
posted by professor rat at 5:00 AM
<< Home