Israel/Gaza: #NotInMyName Or An American Perspective On The Gazan Massacre

Let me start by establishing my angle. I am not an Israeli, I am not Jewish, and I am not Palestinian. Though I am not directly linked to any of the groups involved in this current war, I am a hardworking American citizen whose tax dollars in part funded the Goliath known as the IDF. With that said I will say here at the outset that I intend to shame Israel for its current slaughter of Palestinian civilians while at the same time calling my own government to account for its unilateral support of this evil. I do not intend on justifying Hamas or their actions, but I would ask you to consider one question no matter who and/or where you are: if your families' livelihood, home, drinkable water, power, and access to food were being systematically demolished by a foreign invader would you too not put up a fight, even if they outmatched your military might a thousand to one? 

One holocaust is not justification for another. 

Let me begin with history. I am not a scholar on mid-twentieth century world politics, but am familiar enough with the general outline of post-WW2 events to understand the main events of the so-called "reconstruction". It was during this time that Israel was established as a state in the middle of a settled land. The victors of the War decided that they would give the Jews this land because it was currently under British occupation anyway. In this way they could guarantee that Israel could defend itself in the event of another major clash of civilizations. What is rarely talked about in the media is that evil already pervaded this region even before Israel was established--it was colonized. Lest we forget the conquering kings did not just lie in Germany. Britain, the US, France and a host of other Anglo descendants. They had been carving out lands, setting up artificial borders (defined by western sensibilities), and propping up marionette warlords for centuries. It was these original foreign invaders who decided that Israel should have a state in that area. The local population was not consulted; they were thrown into exile. 

In the time that followed the new marionette warlords--under the auspice of democracy--built up an empire with American aid. Nowadays Israel is tauted as an oasis in the midst of chaos because it is a "democracy" and capitalist, which is code for America's pet project in the Middle East. The problem is that is was western influence that burned the desert down in the first place. The same thing is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan: tribal peoples existed in relative peace, warring only with each other when necessary, until propped up western-friendly governments came in at gunpoint to demand allegiance to a central oligarchy. Would you not fight back if this happened in your city? If Mexico decided that they were going to take Texas (back, for the record) and started building settlements across the border the full weight of the American military would meet them head on and probably take some of their land for the trouble. Why is it any different in Palestine? 

When the US Federal government came in to enforce laws that had been broken for decades by a man in Nevada, armed militias intimidated Federal officers into backing down. So, self-determination is ok if you are white, wear a cowboy hat, and saunter around in stirrups waving an American flag, but if you are a poor oppressed people who have been kicked out of your home by an invading giant with overwhelming force then you are an infidel deserving of death? This is propaganda at its finest. And if you are reading this with anger and disdain I would ask: where are you getting your news? From pro-Israel funded media conglomerates or from the wails of children and innocent civilians crying out in the night for relief?

And this is all propped up by American might. Israel and the US have such a cozy relationship that they will both turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by each other. Though it really wouldn't matter if Israel disagreed with the US-though it is worth noting that this offensive in Gaza comes shortly after the US sought to make a deal with Israel's mortal enemy Iran on its nuclear program--if the US disagreed with Israel the political fallout would be devastating. Why? Because the pro-Israel lobby provides so much of the funds for election campaigns. It is atrocious how much influence Israel-friendly dollars have on foreign policy. 

No one should support this. Pro-Israel supporters with ties to the region I can understand. I think they are deceived and have been lied to by a corrupt and bloodthirsty government who has linked a national identity to a ethnic heritage, but I can at least understand the deception. Non-Jewish Americans--especially on the conservative side--are even more deceived however. They have zero reason to justify this massacre. They gain nothing by sending their tax dollars to fund machines of death in the Middle East. They have simply been convinced by right wing media and corrupt politicians such as Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, and John McCain that they have some stake in the conflict. No! They don't! All the United States of America risks is its "influence in the region" which we have no business being in anyway. What right do rich white men from Arizona, South Carolina, and Tennessee have to direct the future of a people who have inhabited a region for thousands of years? None. They don't even have a right to dictate the future of the soil they are occupying, yet they still lord their influence like a divine right here at the site of the old Massacres and now--by proxy--the new. 

Now I would like to address those who argue that such sentiments are "anti-Semitic". Non-sense. And if anyone confuses racial hatred and bigotry with righteous indignation of a war machine on automatic then those same people are going to end up causing an actual rise in anti-Semitism with their ignorance. People like me who accuse Israeli government members, soldiers in the IDF, US gov't officials who prop up these warlords, and their supporters of being criminals and war profiteers are not accusing any person of Jewish heritage as being such. We are accusing those responsible with their hands in their wallets and their fingers on their triggers. However, as Howard Zinn said you cannot be neutral on a moving train. Anyone who supports these war crimes should not only be ashamed of themselves but should look into the eyes of those babies with their heads blown off (literally) whether they be Israeli, Jewish, American, or any other. Bolivia has and they have designated Israel a terrorist state. 

What then shall we do? The massacre must stop. Protests have erupted all over the world and will continue to do so, but they must be escalated, especially here in the US. Recently, in New York City a brave bunch of individuals of Jewish heritage under the name of "IfNotNow" delivered letters to the heads of major Jewish organizations demanding the end of the occupation. The action then resulted in a sit-in after they read the names of the dead. Some of these folks, like most people who take a stand for justice by sitting down, were arrested. However, their action was poignant, self-sacrificial, and to the point. We need more people who can commit themselves to direct action and escalate until our message of dissent resonates through city, corporate, and congressional halls. 

Secondly, we must continue to share the story. Mass media has been covering the story in an incredibly propogandic and one-sided manner. They may have even deceived some of you reading this story. Just yesterday I saw a story out of Israel about an owl who died as a result of Hamas rocket fire while ignoring the more than a thousand deaths of Palestinians most of whom were innocent civilians. Thankfully, we have alternative on-the-ground sources from outlets such as Facebook, twitter, and other social media platforms; we have petitions that can be filed through WhiteHouse.Gov that we can sign and share (one of which is available here); we can blitz the phone lines of our (supposed) representatives and demand that the federal government cease its unilateral support of this massacre (phone lines available here and here); we can occupy offices of Congresspeople (locations available in last two links); and we can chain ourselves to the government fences to symbolize the constrains of living in a walled up warzone. There is no limit to how we can creatively engage those here at home who make the decisions to send our hard earned tax dollars to fund massacre; we just need to commit ourselves to action and hop to it. This slaughter is being done in your name. No more.

#notinmyname

If you are in Philadelphia there is a rally on Friday August 1st @ 4pm at Love Park and there is also a bus leaving Saturday August 2nd to head to DC for a mass protest in support of Gaza. Be silent no more; its time to get involved.

The Virtual Agora: Why Digital Democracy Is A Vital Next Step In Human Organization

Thesis: Virtual direct democracy can be and already has become an effective tool to combat the top down hierarchies of the corporate/political oligarchy of the 21st century civilization machine. By utilizing open source and free platforms organizers can remove many of the stumbling blocks of participation that result from the capitalist condition and can horizontally create and develop organic resistance and alternatives. 

About Me: My name is Larry Swetman. I am an artist, writer, and self-labeled radical who lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. I have spent the past few years organizing in the Global People's Movement from within its Occupy offshoot. I worked primarily out of Philly, but also spent a good amount of time organizing nationally and internationally with InterOccupy. I was of the first volunteers that helped the craft and develop the process with InterOccupy which was used to organize many events from regional/national/global solidarity actions, the 2012 Occupy National Gathering, and most recently Occupy Sandy . 

My Aim: I want to empower you. I am not sharing these experiences for any sort of validation or glory. I want to show you that anyone can use these systems and processes to organize in their own communities so that we can have our toolboxes ready to fight back against the oligarchy-behemoth before it swallows us whole. After all, genocide is marching west through Gaza as I post this; how shall we respond?

What? 

Before we get into the processes we need to evaluate what the tools are. We primarily use three tools: a phone, email, and maestro. The first two are self-explanatory; The third may be new to you. The maestro conference call system is a tool that allows us to thread together multiple phone lines and structure a conversation in a way that reflects the principles that formed the backbone of the general assemblies of the worldwide protest camps. 

It allows a facilitator (or more, if desired) and tech assistant (again, and more if necessary depending on the volume of the call) to structure the conversation. A digital interface allows the facilitator and TA to a) see the names and hands (more on the latter later) of the people who have called in (though some choose to remain anonymous), b) mute and unmute specific microphones so that folks don't talk over each other, c) break the call down into subgroups so that specific conversations can be had without taking up all of the space of the call. The interface also has many other minute options that make conversations easier to structure such as timers, notification sounds, and a staff chat so that the organizers of the call can share information such as "Hey, caller X is having difficulty hearing can you take them into a private subgroup and help them fix their problem?" 

Additionally, there is also a participation dashboard that callers with access to a computer can see information posted by the facilitators of the call such as agenda, graphs, links, phone lists, sign ups etc. Lastly, when folks sign up for the calls they enter their email address. Maestro makes it possible to gather these emails en masse so that follow up information such as call notes can be sent with ease. 

The entire purpose of the system is to streamline access and level the ground on which organization happens. 

How?

The keen observer may have picked up on the potential for the facilitator and TA to dictate the terms of the call. After all, they have the mute capabilities, the responsibility to call on folks, and the general power to direct the flow of conversation. The keen observer would be right to question this power which is why we worked very hard on the process by which these happen. We wanted to make sure that the facilitator and TA were empowering conversations, not dictating them.

The processes were modeled on the structure of the General Assemblies which were prevalent in almost of all of the global protest camps from the past few years. At the beginning of the call the facilitator explains a technical feature by which numbers on the telephone key pad of the user correlates to a designation on the interface on which the facilitator works. Generally, they correspond as follows:

1- "Raise hand" to get put on "stack" (or a list that is ordered according to progressive principles, meaning that traditionally marginalized voices are given priority over typically dominant groups).

2- "Twinkles" which means that someone wants to show support for what someone is saying. Typically, the facilitator will tell the speaker when someone or multiple people are showing support. Also, in a similar vein the 2 is used for a "yes" vote in a poll or vote.

3- "Down Twinkles" which means the someone wants to express that they do not like what someone is saying. Again, the facilitator will usually tell the group when such feelings are expressed. The 3 is also generally used as a "no" vote in a poll or vote.

4- "Direct Response": One must remember that the goal of these calls is a conversation. However, when the facilitator is given the authority to structure the conversation they need to know when someone needs to speak directly to what is being addressed or has a new idea. Otherwise, the conversations would be muddled at best and incoherent at worst. New ideas usually use the number 1, but when someone needs to address something someone just said then they press 4 and go to the top of the stack (or list). Though, again, progressive principles are followed. If someone is speaking often then the facilitator may put them farther down on the direct response list so that others can be heard as well. 

5- "Technical Difficulties" or "Point of Process": The 5 is mostly used when someone either is having trouble with some technical aspect of the call such as not being able to hear or their buttons not registering on the interface. Some groups also use this number to give the facilitator feedback on keeping to process above. For example, if the community is having a discussion about X and someone on the call starts talking about Y then someone may press 5 to express that Y is off topic at which point it is the responsibility of the facilitator to bring the conversation back to its original point and continue through the stack. The facilitator will usually address 5's as soon as they come up. 

These five buttons and six designations are designed to empower the group to maintain power over the flow of conversation while allowing the facilitator and TA to moderate it. The facilitator will usually refrain from offering points in the discussion and if they must put themselves at the bottom of the stack. The experienced facilitator is usually very cautious in their role because of the inherent power to direct the flow of conversation. 

Why?

The prima facie reason for structuring calls this way is to make them as horizontal as possible. The Global People's Movement--it seems to me--is built around the idea that those in power have built up a hierarchy of power that systematically permeates throughout our civilization and society that makes participation in movements difficult. By using telephones and the internet we are effectively removing a lot of the barriers to participation that a lot of people face. When someone does not have to travel then they are a) more likely to participate and b) do not have to take much time out of their already busy lives. If the stated goals of the People's Movement are to include the everyday person then the hardships of those people must be presupposed. In the capitalist world the everyday person works 1/3 of their lives and sleeps another 1/3 which only leaves them 1/3 for their passions, desires, and projects. Lay on top of that the constant strain of working for ends meat (and sometimes less) and the population is automatically divided into those with the privilege to participate and those without. Calls can remove this barrier at least in some capacity, at least in initial exposure.

Secondly, civilization has been segregated by the oligarchy into many different--sometimes conflicting--subgroups based on anything from race, class, and creed to nationality or religion. A lot of these designations are interpreted and assumed visually. By removing the visual component it is a lot harder to segregate a group; you cannot divide what you cannot see. Even gender can be a grey area when all a facilitator has to go is a name and a voice. Therefore, by holding conversations in the virtual agora the capacity exists to temporarily remove the illusions that the powerful have created to divide us. 

Why is access and equality so important in this setting? Because only mass participation and cooperation can foil the plots of the oligarchy. The global wealth empire is based on the fact that people are different and therefore should be treated different. While it is true that every person is as unique as a snowflake in a superstorm, it is also true that the Earth is a biosphere in which we are all a part. We all have a responsibility to act in a manner befitting the continuing evolution of the human race. Harmony can only be achieved through cooperation and sustainability. However, civilization is structured into divisions with certain privileges granted to some and oppressions to others. To overcome these sets of have's and have not's a system must to devised to break down the dividing wall of hostility and level the playing field for all those affected--namely everyone. 

The virtual agora has the capacity--assuming the painstaking and vigilant work of evolving the processes to meet the needs of all involved--to make cooperation accessible to everyone with access to a phone. That last piece is always going to be a stumbling block; how do we make the process accessible to everyone? But that is a problem that can only be solved by the willing participation of those with the capacity to use their privilege to address it. 

So what?

This technology is in its infancy. There can come a day when technologies can be made to make access to virtual democratic platforms very cheap and more efficient. When that day comes then perhaps true participatory democracy will be possible. In the meantime, we can use what we have now to theorize, plan, and execute plans to beckon that day. People are struggling more and more everyday and have been for centuries under the weight of Empire. War, famine, greed, and poverty. By using tools like virtual agoras we can in some small way effect the world around us by practicing the world we want to see in real time. You never know, the ideas in the mind of a few may produce a vision for the many to rally around, but they will need access. Currently, such ideas are usually limited to the rich, connected, and elite. They then exert their power from the top until their venom trickles down to where we small fish fry. 

However, when access and equality are addressed and the willing have an avenue by which to participate democracy is possible. Again, this technology is in its infancy, but we all have to crawl before we can walk. The virtual agoras can be a help in taking our first steps… if we use them. They are there; they are free. We just need to use them. If you are tired of a world run by the musings and whims of the rich and powerful and have an idea to fix it--let it breathe. Give others a chance to listen, critique, and be inspired. Gather with like minds in a space committed to access and equality and debate how to fight back. For only when we fight back do things change. 

An Open Letter To The University of Pennsylvania

Dear Most Honored Faculty of the University of Pennsylvania,

My name is Larry Swetman. I am an artist, writer, and revolutionary who is interested in attending your school for a degree and certificate in secondary education, but have reached somewhat of a stumbling block. I am writing this letter to you in the hopes that I can make three things clear: 1) that the very education that is the backbone of an ivy league pedigree cannot be based on tally marks of a transcript, 2) that upholding this educational standard should have more to do with wisdom than rules, and 3) that I am more than qualified and would make a welcome addition to your program.

Before I begin my thesis, however, I think it may be best for me to give you a brief background of who I am and how I came to write you this letter. I will be brief for I am sure that you all have much to do, but I will continue in the hopes that your desire to change the world is as symptomatic as mine. (For why else would we all endeavor to teach?)

I grew up very poor, the son of a single mother in Atlanta, GA. I will spare you the shades of the story, but suffice it to say it was a long hard road to reach any sort of educational plateau; it's hard to help your kid with his homework when you both are standing in a breadline. However, fortune favors the tenacious and I was given the chance to go to College.

I decided to go to a Christian Liberal Arts College because I was given a new life when I entered the Church. The life I lived prior to becoming a Christian was wrought with environments saturated with the anger that only flows from desperation. When I entered the Church, though, I heard stories of love and community and thought to myself, "Yeah, this is the way out of hell." Consequently, I undertook a journey to obtain a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical and Theological Studies. Again, I will spare you the minutia of my collegiate story, but suffice to say it was here that I learned how to think, question, and rebel.

I was never satisfied with the neatly packaged ideas that were presented to me; I needed to know why things were/are the way they were/are. Consequently, after obtaining my degree I left the Church on a somewhat transcendental (some may call it spiritual) quest of self-discovery. I immersed myself in philosophy, history, quantum theory, astrophysics, economics, art, sociology, political theory, and a myriad of other subjects until I realized that everything I had been taught was a systematic normalization of the individual based on castes of privilege and oppression. I did not take this knowledge lying down; I took it to the streets.

A few years into College I started to become radicalized. My Alma Mater is a beacon for the conservative cause to the point that they would stand by Governmental-Administrative human rights abuses in the name of divine directive. I started to speak out, write and distribute pamphlets, and protest. It was Desmond Tutu who said that to see injustice and do nothing is to side with the oppressor.

Fast forward to 2011. I had done some time in Seminary before my (self-described) enlightenment and moved to Philadelphia. It was here that I first started to Occupy.

From September 19th, 2011—2 days into the US movement—I committed myself to fighting back. I started by going to Zuccotti Park to set up camp at Occupy Wall Street. I arrived the day that the police violence started and decided to come home and hopefully help set up the movement in Philly. I was there from day 1 of Occupy Philly when we were just a couple of people on a Facebook page trying to kindle a flame. Eventually, it erupted into a fire. Once again I will save you the time of the entire story, but suffice it to say that I was intimately involved from organizing rallies and protests to leading marches; starting a Free university; forming a communication infrastructure to keep the global movement connected; planning national gatherings; occupying bank lobbies; meeting with Governors and Congresspeople to demand certain reforms; speaking on panels from Johns Hopkins to Villanova Universities; and organizing disaster relief when the American Red Cross and FEMA could not get their acts together in New Jersey. And that was just a sampling of the work I did. The papers I have written about my experiences in the social justice movement since then would take up far too much space for this particular letter.

Point being: I have learned more about history, government, economics, geography, sociology, and anthropology in the streets and in self-study over the past three years than I was ever even exposed to as another brick in the wall of the education system.

That last comment finally brings me to the point of my prose: I want to attend your school but do not meet the requirements as laid out by your admissions process. A few of you have even looked over my transcripts (thank you) and evaluated what I would need in order to meet those pre-reqs: basic world history and US; economics; geography; government; anthropology; and sociology courses. So then, what shall I do? Go to a local community College and rack up more debt to take these courses so I meet the prerequisites? Why?

For the last year or so I have been supplementing my real work—as I have laid out above—with working at a teashop in South Philly. I work for $9/hr to pay the bills. I have also recently gotten engaged to a beautiful woman and am trying to start a family. To start that family I have tried to seek self-betterment by going back to school to teach. I have always had a passion to teach and if there is anywhere on the East Coast of the US that needs bright, driven, and inspired teachers who are willing to sacrifice to make the system better, it's Philadelphia. So, I have come to you to obtain the learning necessary to teach the next generation, but, again, I have hit a wall.

I do not have the time or the money to take these courses. In addition to working and starting a family I also maintain my own personal work in the form of writing and making art for my online presence, a necessity in this day and age (www.larryswetman.com). If I were to add to that workload a full year and a half of superfluous classes I would also be adding to financial strain and stress of my marriage for what? So, that I meet requirements on paper? Do I not already meet the requirements? Have I not passed these courses outside of the context of a traditional classroom?

What can I learn of the method of history when my presupposition is already to apply a historical exegesis that takes authorial intent and socio-political context into account? Should I relay the history of the Mujahedeen and how the unification efforts of what we call "Afghanistan" are simply tribal conflicts of resistors who do not want a national government with territorial lines drawn by western oppressors? Shall I connect this story to the CIA funded rise of the Taliban and how it relates to rise of "terrorism"? Shall I write you an essay on how modern terror tactics on derived from early '70s American-backed-and-state-sanctioned terror in Latin America? What more World or US history should I know before I am qualified to teach? How about the genocide of the Native peoples of what we call the "United States?" None of that stuff is taught. I had to learn it on my own, but since I didn't pay for it to be on my transcripts there is no way for you to know.

How about economics? Should we talk about John Locke's theory of private property about how it has inspired the current hierarchical models of authority based on ownership? Can we talk about capitalism and how it has failed the global economy? How about how the world produces more than enough food to feed every person but the supply chain is too broken to work on such levels? How about climate change and the rise of CO2 levels pre-and post-industrial revolution? We could talk about alternatives that aren't in the textbooks as well. In my time working in disaster relief in New Jersey and New York, we developed systems of mutual-aid that brought people and resources to those in need without the use of capital. How about talking about such alternatives? What about how unregulated price manipulators are the reasons for such soaring healthcare costs in the US despite a drop in quality? These are economic issues not taught in textbooks.

How about government? Though I have taken a community College class on American government, I was never taught about the actual political process. How about Citizen's United or McCutcheon? Will the classes teach me how the political process is manipulated by the richest individuals, corporations, and unions to pick the winners before the people ever have a chance to speak? How about the revolving door of staffers to lobbyists that keeps the Oligarchy in tact? I have learned more about government sitting in handcuffs in the back of police paddy wagons than I was ever taught in GOV101.

I could go on from sociology to anthropology talking about the systematic oppression of people of color in this country and its historical connection to slavery, but I will come to the end.

Though I grew up poor my mother tried to instill in me a sense of the so-called "American Dream." "Larry," she used to say, "if you work hard you can be anything you want to be." My experience in the world and seeing those around me has taught that this is a lie. The only reason it is called the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. Stumbling blocks and inhibitions to progress line the road to the Dream like roadside bombs, waiting for you to slip up and touch them. For then debt can shackle you to normalcy; exhaustion can pacify your dissent; and you can work, consume, sleep, wake up and do it all over again for minimum wage your whole life while the elites fly high on Wall St. and in DC.

However, I am still a fool; I am still a dreamer. I still believe that academia offers a way out of the mire for everyone who is given the opportunity. My mother grew up as a poor orphan and to this day struggles, choosing sometimes between buying her food and getting her medicine. But I still believe there is a better way. I believe that people can make wise choices and though those choices may diverge from the norm they set precedent and consequently slowly change the status quo. How many times has the road less traveled made the difference?

I think I have made a pretty good case that I deserve to be in your program. Sure, I could go to those classes, pay those fees, and get those grades, but for what? I would lose time with my family and be farther in debt—for what? Basically, to make it easier on you all to know that I am qualified to be in your program. I can assure I am. I have stood toe to toe with Governors in their own offices and shamed them into admitting their historical, sociological, and governmental inadequacies; I have been beaten on the streets on Philadelphia and New York by Police Departments designed to maintain systems of oppression at the cost of our communities; and—most importantly to me—I have risen from depths of poverty to do so.

I think what my mama was trying to tell me when she tried to instill that Dream in me was that where there is an opportunity…take it. I need an opportunity. If you all find that I deserve one I can assure you that not only will I graduate your program, but will shine in it. Who knows, I might be able to instill the values of an American Dream—truly believing them—to the next generation and they might change the world.

In all humility I thank you for taking the time to read my story though it's not done yet; there are several chapters to be written. I write this in the hopes that the next one will be entitled…

My Years at UPENN.

Sincerely,

Larry Reginald Swetman

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.

On Social Media PART V: The Yin and The Yang Or The Fifth Limb and The Third Eye

So we come to the end...

I have spent the last month dissecting, analyzing, and qualifying the social media experience into four digestible blocks in order to evaluate its utility and place in the world. From conjecture to personal experience I have tried to present social media as a tool that can be used for good and a digital drug that can addict a person into complacency—at best it ignites revolutions and at worst it incapacitates. In my fifth and final installment, I would like to analyze one more aspect of social media that I think is overlooked before moving on to judgment— its medicinal value. By creating a digital space free of many of the constraints of the "real world", the Network has given a voice to some of the voiceless; access to people, places, and ideas otherwise inaccessible for those who are differently-abled; and removed many stumbling blocks of communication and learning for the otherwise challenged. 

The Internet has facilitated a stupefyingly rapid shrinkage of the world. Destinations and cultures that are half a world away have been brought near with the click of a mouse and knowledge that was once reserved for the privileged is now quickly becoming accessible to even the financially poorest human with access. It has also created similar near-light speed-fast access to other humans.

People who once were far off are no longer incommunicado thanks to the Network. It used to be a great privilege to phone someone in another state, but now, voice and video services from Facebook to Google allow for instant calls and even video chats with people across the globe… for free. Communication has become so accessible that we don't even need a specific person to contact anymore; we even meet new people online.

Such instant access is a tremendous blessing for a lot of people. Physical travel between two places is a great impediment to some and impossible for others. These inhibitions make it less likely for some differently-abled folks to participate in certain realms, sometimes even in simple ways that we may take for granted like communicating at all. However, the Network shrinks this gap. Modern technology allows for a variety of ways to get ideas from the neural pathways to the electrical ones.

It may not be as instant as the (dys/u)topian Matrix that I described in PART I of this series (yet), but thought-to-type apparatuses are not science-fiction anymore; the hearing-impaired can read chat boxes in the same way a person with "normal" functioning ear drums; the mute can communicate their ideas with relative ease with folks who might not know sign language with a few clicks of the keyboard; and most importantly (IMO) when engaging online one would never know anyone with any of these or many other conditions is any different than themselves. Any assumption one makes of anyone else while in the Network comes from her or his own preconditioned biases. In the Network, our avatars are all created equal; anyone is free to share ideas, organize campaigns, entertain, and validate herself or himself just like anyone else with access.

If the great disease of humanity is hatred based on perceived difference, then the Network is its medicine, because we are all 1's and 0's in the digital world.

- - -

It has come time for my judgment.

I do not claim to speak for anyone else nor think that my opinion is deserving of any sort of special recognition or validation. I simply offer it as a thinker who has by the good grace of the Cosmos been blessed with the time, freedom, and access to ponder the nature of human character and Her creations. I have spent the past month pouring and musing over the question of whether social media and the digital Network that it is creating is a good or bad thing: Is it helpful or hurtful? Is it creating opportunity or destroying community? Is it igniting human creativity or suppressing it? Is the Great Democratizer or Big Brother?

When I began this series I thought I would have an answer to those questions. I honestly thought that I would unmask social media for the Soma-of-the-Brave-New-World-of-the-21st-Century that it is. However, in the time that I have spent ruminating on it in private and publicly here with you, I have realized the yin and the yang of social media; the blessings and the curses. Even now, as I write this, "Google Now" is being unveiled and lightning storms of new possibilities are striking in neural pathways and computer chips all over the world. Google is offering you and me an easier and more connected life, but it comes at a price— it wants our location at all times. It wants us to open our hearts, minds, wallets, and privacy and in return it will tell us how to destroy just enough space/time to maximize our enjoyment in life. It promises us heaven on Earth in return for our allegiance.

Like Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxies in a billion or so years, the “real world” and the Network are merging. Only at this scale they are merging at a quantum level. Every day we are faced with a choice of whether to sacrifice some of our "real world" and ourselves for an idealized representation of it and us online. The Network offers the potential to cure our ails; set us on equal footing with every other human; and enwrap us in digital ecstasy. Yet, it comes at a price: it may be our privacy; it may be our confidence; and it may be our soul.

Aristotle posited that the soul was simply the accumulation of one's habits. There is no denying the evolution of the matter: if we use social media as a tool then it has been become an inextricable fifth limb or third eye. However, for the one who seeks their validation or self-worth and posts (or reads) religiously out of a need for the "look at me" factor—for the dread of the anxiety of "real world" interaction—then I fear that the Network has become a purgatory for the soul.

In H.G. Wells’ famous work The Time Traveller, the protagonist travels to the year 802,701 where he encounters two groups of people. One of them—the Eloi (the Hebrew derivation of this word translates to "gods")—is a meek and peaceful people that sought out enlightenment and learning over the millennia. The other group—the Morlocks—lives underground and is a frightful and savage bunch that retreated below into the safety of the darkness. In 802,700 years social media and the Internet will have come and gone, however, I can see these two groups representing our futures.

Those who would seek out peace and learning will become more frail for the technologies they will create will replace human labor and allow us to focus more on the mysteries of the Cosmos. I do not foresee such creatures milling about their time in a digital daze; they will be busy evolving in the light.

However, I can also imagine a group who is committed so much to their savage nature that even with the advent of a no-work era retreat to an arena where their hatred and malice can still be poured out in safety—the darkness of an idealized and anonymous identity in the Network. Instead of pursuing knowledge and enlightenment they content themselves with the brutish lustful pleasures of the old ways. In the darkness, they evolve.

The Social Network is both a blessing and a curse. It has the potential to enlighten or devolve humanity. I think the difference between the two outcomes is our capacity to honestly ask why we are using social media the way we are, individually. The ubiquitous nature of the Network makes it impossible to avoid on 2014 Earth, but how we use it is up to us every time we log in.

May we use this tool for good and not evil in moderation and with good will toward all humanity in search of a higher calling for its power is great. Consequently, our responsibility is even greater. I pray that these five POSTs on social media have served and will continue to serve as a catalyst of thought so that you—the responsible human being—can further discern your own motivations and act accordingly. Much is at stake in the future of the Network. In the end, we will master it or it will master us.