Are You A Terrorist? or The Church Of The Capitalist Police State Of America

What the hell is a "terrorist"?

I went online to try to get at least a broad definition of what constitutes a "terrorist" and the best I could come up with was something to the effect of "someone or some group that uses violent means on a—sometimes civilian—population in order to utilize fear in the spread of some ideology or crusade. Then I went to a real world context and tried to remember how "terrorists" have been presented to me in the media and in my own social interactions. I figured maybe I could find some common denominator there.

The media was the easy one. Every station or outlet already has some well-defined political leaning and cannot see the greater context of socio-political events because they are an essential part of it; no one notices something cultural until someone draws attention to it. (That's how we figure out our paradigms.) By and large the right and left wing organizations will both call lots of people terrorists whether they be ISIS soldiers in Iraq; "extremists" from Pakistan; Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Sometimes though you will have some talking head on a 24 hour news channel who will get so riled up by a guest or off their own ego (I'm looking at you O'Reily and Hannity) that they call anyone they disagree with a "terrorist."

When Occupy Wall Street was filling parks from the Shore to the Bay they were deemed terrorists by the right-wing media; The Tea Party has more than once been labeled a "terrorist organization" on MSNBC. They spew shit at each other like they are both ends of the Human Centipede. Apparently to cable news networks a "terrorist" is defined as a politically or socially motivated group or individual who engages in some form of public display to make a point or demand a change, whether it be rallies and protests or jihad and suicide bombings. Now I hope I don't have to point out the quite sizable distance between a protest and a suicide bombing, but it needs to be considered that pundits of both sides of a very influential form of media get away with lumping social activists in with jihadis.

What surprises me most is the trickle down name-calling. I hope that I have presented a good enough case to convince you of the conniving nature of the cable news narrative so that you understand just how much of a population control experiment it is. Our cultural paradigm has such a thick skin that we cannot see past the source of our angst.

I recently wrote a piece about the conflict in Gaza and how I could not believe the depths of morality that a government can sink to in purposefully wiping out civilians in its expansion effort. I also noted in that piece that the Israel/Palestine conflict has colonial roots and how it was only after a western occupation—aka at the barrel of a western tank—that the Israeli government was able to even establish a state. The US has then been propping up that occupation for more than half a century. So, according to the US narrative Israel is the good guy, right?

Now if we go back to the beginning of this piece we can figure out who in this scenario fits the description of terrorist. Israel is this situation a) is a group, b) that is politically and/or religiously motivated, c) uses violence in the forms of a relentless air and ground assaults, d) uses that violence on civilians, and e) uses fear of its superior arms to intimidate the occupants of the world's largest prison cell.  Sure, Hamas fits most of that same description, but they are barely able to put up a fight in the first place. They are so desperate that they have even taken to firing from civilian areas to keep Goliath off the scent. That's shameful, but I also understand because I can see that a true Gazan defense or assault is a joke. In case you weren't aware Gaza doesn't have a military. The only resistance at all to a massacre by a western devil are these men with rockets. If your husband or wife was buried under rubble 100 ft. deep then you might reconsider whom you support too. Either way Hamas is no match for the mighty Israel sitting tight inside their iron dome with Netanyahu on his iron throne with his iron will bringing iron obedience. So, who are the terrorists?

Would you not resist such an occupation? I bet you would and I even have a good ol' fashioned anecdote to illustrate my point: Cliven Bundy. Here we have an old white man who wears a cowboy hat and stirrups, waves an American flag while refusing to acknowledge its referents existence, and talks about race relations like he lives in the eighteenth century. This man grazed his cattle on public land for decades without paying the mandated grazing fees. He figured if he didn't acknowledge the existence of the federal government then he didn't owe it any money. (If only we all lived in such a fantasy world.) Now when he refused the pay the fees federal officers planned to come to his ranch to confiscate his cattle as payment. This story got out on right wing television and consequently the Internet. When it got to Fox News there was a torrent of support flooding in from all over the country (and magnified by the mouths of the talking heads) from self-proclaimed resistors who would be willing to take up arms to keep the federal government off their "friend's" land. The feds showed up and so did the "freedom fighters". The government backed down and the white dissidents celebrated their manly show of strength, but what they failed to realize is that they had become the very thing they always claimed to detest— extremists. Who were the terrorists in this situation?

Now think about Afghanistan. The entire justification of the war was to neutralize Al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Who was in that terrorist network? Men (by and large) who had been leading a tribal life for centuries and succeeding until this western style government-at-the-edge-of-a-sword oligarchy came in to their land to demand allegiance. When they resisted they became part of a wider population of people who have been faced with a choice: assimilate or die. When they declined our offer of western "enlightenment"  (through the mouths of marionettes) then they instantly become part of the enemy. Who are the great enemy? The terrorists. Oh, and they are Muslim too? Perfect! That'll make a great headline. "The Islamic Extremists Strike Again!" it'll say on the Cooper Blitzer O'Hannity Report.

The definition of "terrorist" that we have been fed by the media doesn't seem to incorporate the seismic shift in power that results when an invading army or a central government invades a relatively unarmed country. What once was your land isn't anymore. Now someone else claims to own it and he has a gun pointed at you if you disagree. It was ok for Cliven Bundy and his bunch to raise arms against the federal government of the United States of America; it is apparently not ok to be a poor brown farmer whose only choice is "give up the way you have lived for centuries and live like us. If you don't we'll kill you, your family, and your village and spin it as "collateral damage" on the evening news." Between the Afghan oppressed and the privileged horse riding, gun-totting, NRA card-carrying, living-in-a-dream-world conservative cattle rancher who is the real extremist?

It seems to me that the real terrorists are those who use their overwhelming force to intimidate populations into submission and using fear as the balancing factor of dissent. This is consistent in Israel, Syria, Egypt, and the good ol' United States of America. That's right folks we have a whole branch of order bringers right here at home that are state sponsored and funded —the police.

They maintain an order that is defined by them (often times in conflict with the actual law), is profitable, and based on fear. Modern police tactics are more military than protection these days. And why wouldn't they want to be? They are supplied with military surpluses such as riot gear and tanks and are dressed up like they are auditioning for RoboCop. It's a basic principle of bored humans that if you have a toy you want to play with it. So they use their power and ability to circumvent the law to harass and imprison entire people groups for offenses no more harmful than drinking a beer. Yet the means used to arrest and incarnate this person more often than not looks more like a UFC match than a civil restraint. And they get away with it with impunity. So they cruise through the streets in their new air-conditioned American made pigmobiles like a possessed wolf sniffing out his kill. Why do they hide in darkness to surprise you? Because they want you to be afraid.

"That's right, you've heard the stories! You know all those stories about black and brown boys and men being viciously beaten and sometimes killed by an army designed to make you afraid of it… and we got away with it. So watch your back."

Signed sincerely, The Undercurrent Of Every Police Interaction You Have Ever Had.

That's what you get to do when you are police: you get to go to work, put on battle armor, and cruise the streets in fast fancy cars to search for prey to try out your new toys out on. And god help anyone who makes them mad because they have a blank check and will write your name in at any time. That's a real base of fear and it is all courtesy of the Church of the Capitalist Police State. Like the Afghan farmer if you disagree with the new order then you can get ready to have hell and all its army descend on your house, kick your door in, and black bag you down to a dark alley where you will never been seen again. That's fear; that's power; that's terrorism.

The eternal civilized conflict is pitted between an invading force against a person who stands their ground. That's the way it has been and that's the way it always will be and if you resist you will be given a scarlet letter—a red crescent— to inform the watching world what you have been labeled as—a terrorist.

PS- I wonder how long it will take for this post to get me on that terror watch list? Am I the millionth-and-first customer? Do I win the prize? My picture in the cross hairs of a flying robot of death?

Addendum: I do want to acknowledge that there are people in this world—truly evil people—who indeed terrorize peoples, villages, cities, and countries with the reckless abandon that is nothing short of the possession of the devil himself. I acknowledge that these people exist and deserve the name and to be treated as such. I just don't think that every Muslim or farmer who resists central control of his families land should be lumped into the same category. There is a sizable gap between a resistor and a terrorist. The reason for so much hate in the world—especially in the American narrative—is the failure to notice the distinction. Great change is hindered by blind obedience to dogma. My thesis is simple: be wise and discern your enemy and so that you learn to recognize friend from foe.

The Internet, The FCC, and Piketty Or The Wizard of Wall St and State-Sanctioned Violence

If you have been paying attention there is an FCC ruling that may be coming shortly that will put a nail in the coffin of the empowering effects of the Internet. 

I have been reading Pikkety's book "Capital in the 21st Century" lately and while I am only an introduction and a chapter in I have noticed a point that he keeps coming back to time and time again: the main contributing factor that leads to the convergence of wealth and shrinking inequality is the diffusion (or mass dissemination) of knowledge and skills. In other words, education is the way out of poverty. These two subject matters got me thinking. If education is the key to poverty and governments are so keen these days to cut education budgets from Pre-K to Higher Ed what is the hope of those of us who have not inherited immense wealth and privilege? My answer: the Internet. And now the free nature of the Internet is at risk in the US. If Comcast, Verizon, and those other corporate vultures end up able to monetize access to the Internet (even further than they already have) then the empowering effects of free accessible education are going to be diminished at best and extinguished at worst. This situation is a classic Marxist analysis: if the capitalists end up owning the means of production then they will have a monopoly on free education and consequently on the capacities of the underprivileged to get the skills necessary to lift themselves out of poverty. 

It seems we are at a turning point in history. The last few years have been marked by a surge in dissent acted out in the public square. Though sweeping reforms and systematic change have so far been unattained there have been small victories. However, very recently (two days ago at this writing) an Occupy Wall Street protestor was convicted of assaulting a police officer as a result of a seizure that she went into as a result of being sexually assaulted by the very officer in question and faces a maximum of seven years in prison. In short, precedent has been set (though it has been in play for centuries on people of color and other marginalized people groups) to legitimize police violence against dissent. Where does that leave us?

Let me recap: a leading economist has pointed out in his monumental (and possibly new standard) work that education is the primary catalyst of shrinking systematic wealth inequality; the Internet is the prima facie access point to a free education for those at the bottom of the inequality scale; the FCC is considering ruling that Internet giants like Comcast and Verizon can give priority access to companies and individuals who pay more (thereby furthering the wealth privilege); and dissent is being quelled by legitimized police violence against non-violent demonstrations. (I haven't even touched on the Bundy militia who can point assault rifles at Federal officers and go home to masturbate on their own sense of self-satisfaction at night.)

What are the people to do? Occupy Wall Street, the cause for which Cecily McMillan was in the street in the first place, was (and is) aimed at drawing attention to the privilege gap. In the mainstream the message takes the form of income inequality. Therefore, it would follow that the same folks who were camped out in public squares across the US would react with the same passion at the prospect of one of the major corporations (who pays around 1.4% in corporate taxes, mind you) being able to prioritize the privileged and cut literally life-giving access to the disadvantaged. However, these same would-be dissenters have to face the possibility that they will be met with the same violence and gross miscarriage of justice that Cecily McMillan and so many others face and have faced on a daily basis. 

Those at the top of the inequality mountain are--in classic Marxist terms--trying to fence off one of the last remaining vestiges and most easily accessible forms of public empowerment. Furthermore, this corporate theft is not only not-going unnoticed it is being lauded as progress by corporate lobbyists (i.e. those with real and meaningful influence in DC) and if anyone disagrees they face the wrath of corporate security a.k.a. local Police departments. 

These are truly Orwellian times we live in. Only instead of a seemingly omnipotent dictator we live under the rule of the Wizard of Wall St. hidden by a shroud of smoke and mirrors, protected by an army of mindless drones hiding behind their talismans of protections. They have already taken the means of production and it did not cause the People to organize and rebel. Now, they are coming for our best chance at free public and empowering education that isn't subject to the normalization effects of standardized testing. 

If the capitalists take the Internet, then we will have truly lost. They will own 1/3 of our lives (work), our political process (unlimited corporate and practically unlimited individual campaign contributions), our communication channels (cell phones/email), and our education and information access points (the Internet). And, again I cannot emphasize it enough, that non-violent dissent will most surely lead to state-sanctioned violence. However, if we give up the right to our lives, our communications, and our education, then we will deserve our fate. There is a Ben Franklin quote that has been shared many times over the past couple of years on social media, but it bears repeating here:

"Those who would give up their liberty for a little security are deserving of neither."

I would add (again possibly beating a dead dog) that Thomas Jefferson also said that 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

We are not short of patriots who have shed blood in the name of liberty in the past few years, but have our seeds been watered? Dr. King also said that 

"Those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war."

We know how well those who love war are organized. They have obtained the means of production and sit atop such a mountain of wealth that they are poised to buy our livelihoods and chances at prosperity with their lobbyists are political marionettes. What then shall we do? Quietly disagree or give a shout so loud that we shake the foundations of democracy? The choice is yet before us: either we risk something to gain a little ground or we risk nothing and lose everything. 

The Illusion of Authority Or The Allegory of the Cave Dweller

On 2014 Planet Earth it seems to be a given that there are some people and institutions that are generally acknowledged to have "authority" over certain persons and people groups. In other words, have the legal right to exercise power over people. Why? Who gave them the right to exercise physical, economic, and even psychological force upon another person? Where is the natural autonomy of the individual? When and how do these natural rights conflict with the constraints of living in a civilization? Can a person be free in 2014? In this short piece, I would like to evaluate and challenge the nature of "authority" and its current role as judge and jury in society. It is my hope that by the end of this entry you will not accept any "authority" simply because it exists, but instead question everything because it is your right and your responsibility as a naturally free person.

I feel like I need to be upfront. I am not writing this entry in a vacuum; this subject did not just swipe across my mind like an idea on InspirationCupid. I have dealt with it my whole life. As a child, I never understood why I should just do what someone told me because they told me to do it. As an adult I have never lost this tenacity to always ask why? It has not always been the easiest road, but I have felt compelled in school, church, the workplace, and in society to ask for an accounting of why things are the way there are. However, I have found that people and institutions have always been taken aback by my relentless pursuit of accounting. Even in the business world—which western civilization seems so keen to idolize—critical thinking and innovation are lauded and praised; yet questioning of authority is punished. Are not innovation and "insubordination" based on the same idea? Furthermore, is not democracy based on the idea of ideological synthesis? When one idea becomes outdated, archaic, or unuseful then should it not be scrapped for a new more appropriate idea? However, this process cannot take place in a world where power is maintained out of fear of change. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; and hate to suppression. Conversely, dissent leads to dissatisfaction; dissatisfaction leads to innovation; innovation leads to progress. This is the purpose of my piece: to dispel with the theory that challenging "authority" is a bad thing. On the contrary, I plan to argue that "authority" is simply an illusion based on fear and perceived power. My thesis will also lead to a suggestion: rebellion in every corner of society for without dissent progress is impossible.

Let's start with a story:

Once upon a time in a land probably not too far from where you are sitting there wandered a group of hunter-gathers. Every day or so a couple of the folks in the group would go out on a hunt and bring back a kill for everyone in the group to share. However, at some point two of the hunters—let's call them Jeff and Dean—were sitting around a campfire with the kill in between them. One of them, Jeff, had been the one who thrust the spear that killed the deer. Jeff wasn't always the one who threw the killshot but on this occasion he was. Most of the time it was someone different and no one bothered to squabble over who had done what. The basic narrative was "we gotta eat" so everyone pitched in. On the day in question though something changed.

On that day Jeff felt like he should be entitled to more of the kill. He may have felt this way for a number of reasons (fear of not having enough next time; jealousy at how much someone else had taken by sheer coincidence; or simple black and white greed, among other possibilities), but when it is all said and done Jeff felt privileged and wanted to keep the booty for himself.

He picked up the carcass and started to drag it off to a cave when Dean stopped him and looked at the kill and then back at Jeff several times before realizing what he was doing. No one had ever tried to keep something back for themselves before so he had no point of reference for Jeff's actions. So, since Dean was hungry he reached for a piece of the meat only to have Jeff raise up to full height, pound his chest, and scream at Dean, intimidating him to back down. Dean being the smaller of the two knew he was no physical match for Jeff so he let him go and joined the others who looked on with wonder as Jeff climbed a hill to the nearest cave to store his treasure in a defensible area.

The other folks of the group did not understand what was going on either so they ascended the hill of Jeff's new cave dwelling and attempted to enter to obtain some of the meat; they were hungry. When they got close Jeff again raised up to full height and intimidated them with his strength. Jeff, though he had always been the most strong of the group, now positioned himself as the lone alpha; the one in charge because everyone else was either too afraid or too hungry to challenge him.

After the others realized that they are not going to get any food from Jeff they simply organized another hunting party without him. Like every other hunt they went out into the wildlands, captured their prey, and brought it back to camp to share with everyone. However, when they came back they found Jeff waiting for them.

In all his time on the mountain Jeff had started to look down on the rest of the group—literally and figuratively. Since he had a steady supply of food he did not need to joint the hunt (thought I suspect the others may have been wary about him joining anyway, considering his previous actions). When he started running low Jeff had an epiphany: It was his strength of intimidation that had won him the carcass last time; maybe he could do it again. When the hunting party came back to shouts of joy and thankfulness from the rest of the group, Jeff was waiting at the edge of the clearing with a devious smirk on his face. He moved to take the meat. Again, the others were not used to selfishness so they thought they maybe he was simply trying to help them carry it back to camp. However, it did not take them long to realize that he was dragging it back up to his cave again to hide away and gorge.

This time the group confronted him, but Jeff—having an excess of nutrition while the others starved—had a size and energy advantage and intimidated them into submission. The others would continue to starve while Jeff gorged on his booty by virtue of his brawn.

Though the group tried to get around Jeff's notice time and time again, he always inevitably came for his due. After a while others started hoarding resources too in order to keep them from Jeff. They even took to the hills to protect their food from Jeff's and consequently each others' (they now started to doubt each other too) evil grips. After performing this grift several times Jeff started to feel entitled—not by his strength—but by right. However, Jeff had come to realize that this wedding feast couldn't last forever (a few of the others had started giving him contemptuous looks) so he invented a system by which people felt obligated to feed him with their labor in exchange for his good graces.

"It's the natural order of things," he would say. "I am the chosen one to preside over the food. If you will bring me all of the kills then I won't kill you. However, I am a just ruler; I will give you a piece of every kill you deliver."

The people out of their fear of Jeff's brawn and status as the Cave Dweller accepted the deal. So, from then on out Jeff had "authority" over the food to divvy out as he saw fit. He had no natural or divine right in reality, but had scared the people into believing that he had some special status because of… well, whatever he chose to tell them. My guess would be the blessing of the stars or gods. In reality he was just bigger than them and had scared them long enough that they thought he deserved it by right.

Eventually, the group would grow so accustomed to their new master lording their own labor over them and being malnourished that Jeff would be able to swindle a few of them into increasing his stock in brawn. Jeff realized that he could amass such a wealth of meat that it would not hurt his gorging feasts one iota if he were to break off a little bit of sinew and tendon here and there in exchange for increasing his dominion. So, he goes into the group—as they now bow the knee to the master of the meat—and chooses the five biggest and strongest people to come with him back to his cave. They look at each other apprehensively—for they were all even more scared of Prophet Jeff than they were of Strongman Jeff—yet they eventually marched up with him.

When they arrived he set out a hunk of meat for them five times the portion of the normal ration. They had been so hungry that their mouths watered at the sight. Jeff beaconed them to feast. After they had feasted they sat down against the cave walls satisfied with their "blessing." Jeff was also satisfied but for another reason. He then gave a speech…

"My friends," he began. "You are such a noble group among those swine down there in the group. Your muscles are strong; your legs swift; and your hunt reliable. You are clearly blessed by the gods and deserve to be up here with me on high, not down in the pits with the pissants."

They all looked at each other questionably. They had never considered themselves qualitatively in relation to the others before. It was really everyone else and Jeff at this juncture in human history. However, they felt so satisfied with their 5x portions and their greedy sides liked that they could look down from the top of the mountain at the others (who were coincidentally at that very moment glaring up at the cave wondering what had become of the five). By virtue of the place that Jeff had put them they indeed felt "above" the others; they belonged there. They agreed.

"Excellent," Jeff glowed "You are the peacekeepers of the cave. You are in charge of protecting the meat and me from any predator foreign (other animals) and domestic (other humans in the group). In return for your services I will give 3x the normal portion of the hunt!" He said the last part like it was a great blessing and showed them their bounty.

"That 3x portion doesn't look as big as what you just gave us," one of the brave newly dubbed guardians piped up.

In reality, Jeff was being greedy and trying to keep the extra 2/5 to himself, but he was a sly devil… "That extra portion is for the gods who have demanded a sacrifice."

"Why do the gods need meat?"

Jeff smacked the warrior. Though Jeff had put on a considerable amount of weight since the beginning of his grift, he was still the biggest person in the group.

"Because they demand it."

Again, Jeff had intimidated his "subjects" into obedience. Only this time he retained their loyalty out of fear and reward.

For the rest of his life Jeff sat on his hill fattening himself off of the labor of the group. He sat in his cave dwelling "communing with the gods" (which really meant he was eating, eating, eating) while his band of brothers met each hunting party at the edge of the clearing to take in their take to bring back to the cave.

(Jeff had long since abandoned the whole "take the whole carcass and divvy a portion out among the group" scheme. He had made it much more efficient. Now, the hunting party simply had to turn over 3/4 of the kill. They could keep the last 1/4 for the group. After all, they'd earned it, Jeff would assert. Jeff then gave a small portion to his guards and stored the rest away for himself.)

As the years went by Jeff grew older and his appearance was matched only by his mystique. In his old years he never left his cave. Year after year he received his due as the gods commanded and the rest of the group shouldered his lavishness with their labor and hunger. Eventually though, Jeff came to his deathbed. By now he had come up with a fantastic group of rituals that he “received from the gods” that were performed on him day and night by his band of brothers, but he was still dying. One day he died and the group became at a loss: What would they do without their leader? How could they function if there was no one to divvy up the hunt? Who would tell them how much to eat? To whom would the band of brothers be loyal?

It didn't take long for the band of brothers to realize that they were now in power. They were the ones that the group was coming to for their answers and so they all separately got it into their heads that they each should be the new Cave Dweller. So, they all sat around a campfire and chewed on a piece of meat to try to figure out who should be the new leader. When their shares ran out and they had not yet figured out whom the new leader was, one of them—Abed—picked up another chunk from the stockpile.

When the others reached for the carcass as well Abed stood up full height, stared them down, and intimidated them with a primal scream and a show of brawn. A second man tried to scream back, but was shouted and then pushed down by Abed. The others were also invigorated to challenge this would-be-meat-hoarder yet none—out of their fear—rose to the task. Thus, the next Cave Dweller was chosen by strength of arms—literally.

This cycle continued until someone realized that the same process kept happening over and over again. Apparently, there was something systematic and consequently—in the mind of the brainwashed—natural to this order.

Fast-forward a few millennia...

Jeff and Abed's successors do not need to bother themselves with storing meat away in caves anymore. They have factories all over the country producing so much pork that the pig feces are in endangering the water supplies. And they don't live in caves anymore. Now they take their booty up private elevators to their posh penthouse suites in Manhattan or DC. The setting has changed, but the game stays the same.

You will recall that Jeff's whole "authority" structure started out of fear. The cooperative environment that the Cave Dweller was born into was harmonious; everyone had his or her fare share of work and reward. There is no difference today. Though the complexities of sustenance have changed, the principles have remained the same. Instead of a small group going out into the forest to hunt, individuals trek from their individual homes to their workplaces where in exchange for their labor they are given pieces of paper that Jeff's successors have assured them can be exchanged for anything they need if they have enough. However, Jeff's successors also create the rates at which these exchanges can be made.

The successors also have developed their own band of brothers, which they use to shield themselves from the group down the mountain (the workers from the previous paragraph). Instead of finding the five strongest warriors they have created systems to create the strongest warriors. By teaching their intimidation techniques to people who will trade their allegiance from the rest of the group to the successors, they are rewarded with more pieces of paper for trading and also societal rules that make it a punishable offense to fight back. Thus the military and police forces of today are given not only great rewards and guaranteed safety in return for their allegiance, but also a piece of the inherited "rights" of Jeff's successors.

The People in this story have faired no better than their hunting-and-gathering ancestors. As a matter of fact, their plight is much worse. Instead of trying to deal with one despot and his cronies hoarding their labor, we are left to deal with a system that produces despots and lionizes the tenants that create more cronies in a circle of violence, abuse, and corruption. The lustful spoils of such evil even inspire envy in some, producing wanna-be strongmen in the home, school, and workplace all motivated by the same factor—fear.

Jeff and his crew lorded over the rest of their fellow humans in the same way that bankers, politicians, bosses, gangsters, "private security", military commanders, cops, and domestic losers do now: out of fear, intimidation, greed, and selfishness.

"Authority" in the hierarchical top-down model that is practiced today from Presidents to Paupers is designed out of fear to use intimidation to keep control over the means of social stability. The world could function just fine in a cooperative model where everyone chips in and reaps the rewards equally, but it is kept divided by those who would hoard the abundant resources of the good Earth as a means to control how those resources are distributed. Such figures have been sly for millennia, convincing us that they deserve the responsibility (and reward) by virtue of their blessing as being divinely inspired, democratically chosen, or—worse still—a conquering ruler.

This privilege is an illusion based on the ignorance of the People and the willful deception of those in power. There is not one "authority" figure on Earth whether they be a King, CEO, or Police Commissioner who does not know deep down in the back of their consciousness that they are one uprising away from usurpation or the gallows.

Part of the blame lies with those first humans who let Jeff wander off with that first carcass. Had Dean picked up a rock, bashed him over the head with it, and put the meat back out for the group then maybe civilization would not have (d)evolved into a society of have's and have-not's. If the group had come together and decided amongst themselves that this "authority" thing wasn't working out for them and gave Abed and the band of brothers the same fate, then maybe we wouldn't have a militarized police force deciding who are the patriots and the terrorists. Today such a democratic coup de tat is not so easily accomplished. Jeff's successors have done a fantastic job of dividing the people down the mountain by race, class, and creed. They has so convinced the people that they are different that the have forgotten that they are one—and always have been—under the boot heel of Jeff, Abed, the band of brothers, and their kin.

Jeff and his successors have been smart. Rocks to the back of the head don't work anymore for when you cut the head off of one of these serpents two more sprout up in their place by virtue of the systems they've created. However, I am convinced that if the people came back together from their disparate caves and decided to work together that they could replace Jeff and his successors' dirty schemes with more natural and cooperative systems that make sure that everyone has access to the booty of the good clean Earth and not just a few who hide their spoils away in some god-blessed cave on Wall Street or Capitol Hill.

Authority is a powerful illusion, but it is a mirage nevertheless. We can remove it...one "disobedience" at a time.