#that was taken from the people they also colonized and carried out a genocide on. that rhetoric shouldn't surprise me here. and yet.

[toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account]

trying to talk about What's Happening and hearing "b-but israel is one of the only other DEMOCRACIES!!!!!" and having to restrain yourself because you're thinking. Who The Fuck Cares

[probablyasocialecologist]

Yes, on Saturday, Hamas militants broke out of the prison of Gaza and massacred 1,200 Israelis, including many civilians, taking more than 100 hostages. From the second I heard what was happening I have been overcome by a combination of grief and horror at the massacre itself, and also the sheer, unrelenting terror of knowing how the Israeli and American governments would weaponize these deaths. 

And like clockwork, the loss of Israeli lives is being used by our government to justify the rush to genocide, to provide moral cover for the immoral push for more weapons and more death. 

For Jews, the pain we feel is not ours alone. Since the founding of the state of Israel, the Zionist movement has positioned the domination and oppression of Palestinians and the colonization of Palestinian land as the answer to the very real question of Jewish safety. They have taken the very real pain and trauma that we as Jews carry and sharpened it into a deadly weapon. We desperately must understand that what is happening is not a cycle of violence. It is a system of violence. Everyone is caught in its teeth.

It is the system of settler colonial apartheid that the Israeli government has built and maintained over the past seventy-five years—with billions upon billions of dollars from the United States. Settler colonialism is a structure, a language, a culture, an ideology—an interlocking, totalizing, system of violence. It is a machine of war and dehumanization against Palestinians. It is this system that imperils the lives and safety of everyone.

While the vast majority of the violence of the apartheid regime lands on Palestinians, there is no safety for Israelis in a system rooted in such dehumanization and oppression. In the words of Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer, “My great lesson from Auschwitz is: whoever wants to dehumanize any other must first be dehumanized himself. The oppressors are no longer really human, whatever uniform they wear.” The Israeli government has lost any semblance of humanity as they wage a genocide against the people living in Gaza.

[...]

“Never again” means standing up for Palestinian people. “Never again” means this very moment.

[thevividgreenmoss]

Did she realize she was speaking to a victim, and that I was her child? If she did, I couldn’t feel it. When I tried to tell her how her husband’s abuse had hurt me, she was incredulous. “But you were such a happy child,” she said.

Meanwhile, Fremlin acted quickly. He told my mother he would kill me if I ever went to the police, and wrote letters to my family, blaming me for the abuse. He described my nine-year-old self as a “homewrecker,” and said my family’s failure to intervene suggested they agreed with him. He also threatened retribution:

“Andrea invaded my bedroom for sexual adventure” — I had asked Fremlin the night the abuse took place if I could sleep in the spare bed in the room he shared with my mother — “ … for Andrea to say she was ‘scared’ is simply a lie … Andrea has brought ruin to two people who love each other … If the worst comes to worst I intend to go public. I will make available for publication a number of photographs, notably some taken at my cabin near Ottawa which are extremely eloquent … one of Andrea in my underwear shorts …”

(I’d forgotten about the photos until I read this letter. I was 11 when most of the pictures were taken.)

In spite of the letters and threats, my mother went back to Fremlin, and stayed with him until he died in 2013. She said that she had been “told too late,” she loved him too much, and that our misogynistic culture was to blame if I expected her to deny her own needs, sacrifice for her children, and make up for the failings of men. She was adamant that whatever had happened was between me and my stepfather. It had nothing to do with her.

I believe my mother answered her own question about the girl in the story. She didn’t tell her mother because she would rather die than risk her mother’s rejection.

Years passed. My father continued to have lunches with my mother, never mentioning me. I asked him about these lunches before he died. He told me I just never came up in their conversations. My siblings and parents carried on with their busy lives. I tried to forgive my mother and Fremlin and continued to visit them and the rest of my family. We all went back to acting as if nothing had happened. It was what we did.

Jesus fucking christ I had no idea about any of this my heart's breaking for this woman for the child she was...her mother turns out the mishima of white settler womanhood self-serving obsession with a victimhood that to some extent must exist yet pales at every point in comparison with the reality of those most deeply affected and traumatized by those whose colonizing endeavors you've aligned yourself with against the rest of the world whose cries for recognition support restitution are left unheeded even when it's your own fucking child that's the one crying it falls on uncomprehending ears too busy obsessing over one's perpetually wounded self-perception and inveterate desire for validation and attention and what passes for love from the people that you yourself have chosen to "love" the people you enable to whom you are accomplice with whom elaborate fantasies of wounded innocence built upon the bedrock of civilizational scale rape and genocidal murder are constructed...you see what people do to their own families their own children and you can never be surprised at what they'll do to those they've decided are not family whose children are decidedly not their 'own' either but rather immanent & imminent threats to be neutralized by hard labor or murder. They've been doing it all along

[nohkalikai]

We are a group of individuals and collectives in revolutionary solidarity with the people of  Palestine. As a response to the feminist call to strike for Gaza on the 8th of March (International Women’s Day), we feel the need to put out this statement to recognise the occupational, genocidal deprivations perpetrated by the terrorist settler-colonial Zionist state of Israel that has led to a death toll of over 30000 Palestinians with countless trapped under rubble, decomposed, and millions displaced. We bear witness to the carceral violence, torture, humiliation and murder of Palestinians, especially those held captive in besieged Gaza and hostages taken by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). This includes a wide range of carceral forms of torture including the use of  Palestinian men as human shields, widely circulated dehumanising images of public sexual violation of Palestinian men, sexual assault of Palestinian women in Zionist prisons, enforced disappearance of children, and other acts of violence and debilitation. These largely go unreported, under-reported or misreported because of the Zionist hold over mainstream media.

Humanitarian aid is being withheld by Israel to intentionally starve Gazans as an instrument of ethnic cleansing and genocide. When the few aid trucks are allowed by Israel to finally cross into Gaza, or aid is airdropped by other countries attempting to break Israel’s siege, the Zionist army bomb, shoot, kill, and run over Palestinians rushing to food trucks as seen in multiple incidents including the recent flour massacre. Children continue to die from starvation and severe climate conditions; and those not dead yet are severely malnourished. Since October 7, Israel has incessantly bombed Gaza from F16s using 2,000-pound US-supplied bombs that blow up whole neighborhoods, internationally banned white phosphorus, and smaller lethal bombs dropped from the constantly circling drones. Israel has destroyed the 70% of the housing stock in Gaza, rendered all hospitals unable to provide care, and has further destroyed medical facilities, desalination plants that supplies clean water, schools and universities, public archives, cultural and historical landmarks, mosques  and churches, bakeries, roads and highways, and all civilian resources and infrastructure crucial for survival rendering Gaza unlivable. The sustained targeted attack on medical facilities have necessitated medical procedures like amputations and C-sections without anesthetics while the  neonatals and infants are dying on hospital beds and ICUs for lack of oxygen. Palestinian medics are not only overworked and severely under-resourced but under direct attack. Mass graves continue to pile up and Israel strips Palestinians of dignity even in death. Palestinian families are not allowed to recover bodies. Instead, the occupying forces attack and bomb graveyards and steal dead bodies for organs and skin to be used in Israeli forensic institutes. We have also seen the insidious images of Israeli soldiers posing with looted Palestinian women’s lingerie, mannequins, stealing children’s toys and making videos cooking inside houses Gazans have been forcibly displaced from. The entire population of Gaza has been subjected to collective punishment directed towards the acts of resistance forces, which is, in fact, the right of a colonized people for self-determination and autonomy. Israel has carried out  targeted attacks on journalists, medics, artists, academics and anyone who can help save lives and ensure the survival of Palestinian culture. The Zionist regime has killed over a 100 journalists to suppress news coming out of Gaza. Murdering journalists has been a tool to silence Palestinian voices throughout the 75 years of occupation. We recall the targeted killing of journalists like Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022 in occupied West Bank. We honour and learn from resilient voices like Wael Al-Dahdouh who survived an Israeli attack and whose entire family was murdered by Israel.

The Zionist entity also has a long history of pinkwashing, touting itself as a queer haven, and using that as a justification for genocide. We see IDF soldiers proudly upholding rainbow flags on rubble or others proposing to their partners amidst the horrors they inflict on the Palestinians. We see from various archives of queerness that Palestinian queers have always resisted this. Queer people all over the world reject Israel’s pinkwashing with the slogans, ‘Not in our name’, ‘Not Gay as in Happy but Queer as in Free Palestine’ and ‘No Pride in Apartheid’, and lately, ‘No Pride in Genocide’. We call for all queer comrades to include the liberation of Palestine in their imagination of queer liberation. Amidst the excruciating, incomprehensible ongoing physical and emotional trauma genocidal occupation inflicts, we call on our mad, queer, crip comrades to unflinchingly demand a free Palestine because disability and queer justice is intimately tied to Palestinian liberation.

On January 26 2024, in the case against Israel brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that through the actions of Israel, Gaza is experiencing a plausible genocide. The ICJ ordered six Provisional Measures that under law, Israel must fulfill. The ICJ ordered Israel to take measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach the Palestinian population in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza. As we can see, Israel has completely ignored and defied all Provisional Measures.This also shows the impunity Israel enjoys because it is backed by imperial regimes. It reveals how colonial imperialism undergirds international law that has historically failed the colonised by protecting the interests of colonial imperialist regimes. Yet, the colonised have stood strong in their struggle for freedom and liberation, which has historically led to the downfall of colonial empires.

We understand that our liberation as oppressed people is deeply intertwined with struggles of the oppressed worldwide. We recognise India’s complicity in enabling the genocide and occupation of Palestine. A recent report by Pew Research Center, shows that India leads in support for autocracy and military rule among surveyed nations. Indian right-wing accounts are among leading amplifiers of anti-Palestinian fake news and have used it to fan and escalate anti-Muslim violence in India. As Azad Essa traces in his book Hostile Homelands, despite its official stance supporting the 1975 UN resolution that concluded Zionism as racism, India continued maintaining relations with Israel through security and defense engagements. For example, India adopted Israeli security systems in response to the November 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Thereafter India bought its mass surveillance systems infrastructure – the Central Monitoring System – from Israel, which can operate without court orders and access any individual’s communication data. The BJP-led Hindutva regime (under whose fascist vision of ‘Hindu Rashtra (state)’ crimes against Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Adivasis is at an all time high) upgraded this relation to a ‘strategic partnership’ following Modi’s 2017 Israel visit where the two parties signed a defense deal worth 2 billion USD. This deal included the Israeli spyware Pegasus, that the government used to arrest journalists, government critics, students, especially Dalit and Muslim organisers and throttle political opposition. India is now the top arms buyer from Israel, and our taxes fund Hermes 900 drones manufactured by the Adani Elbit UAV Complex (the first facility in India and outside Israel to manufacture this drone) which Israel uses to massacre Palestinians. Israeli drones ‘field-tested’ on Palestinians are imported to be used on Kashmiris, thwart Adivasi movements in Bastar, and are being used against the ongoing Farmers’ protest.

Much like Israel, the Indian state is a settler-colonial state occupying Kashmir. The abrogation of article 370 in Kashmir in 2019 that catapulted the facilitation of Indian citizens settling in Kashmir is starkly similar to Israeli settler-colonial policies. Kashmir has thus had a long history of what Ather Zia calls ‘affective solidarity’ with Palestine embodied through various ways of resisting whereby the Palestinian struggle is ‘inspirational, cathartic’ to Kashmiris. Following the article 370 abrogation, Palestine-Kashmir solidarity strengthened with the BDS movement’s call for solidarity for Kashmir. Pro-Palestine protests in Kashmir continue to be repressed, a history that goes back to 2014 where amidst chants of ‘Save Gaza’ and ‘Go India, Go Back’, the Indian Armed Forces shot at young boys who were stone pelting, killing a 14 year-old.

We also stand with the workers of India who have made their solidarity to the Palestinian cause clear – the water transport workers who have refused to aid the shipment of arms to Israel on 14/02/2024 as well as the major Indian trade unions who, on 09/11/2023, rejected the Indian government’s move to replace Palestinian workers with Indian workers in Israel. We extend our revolutionary solidarity to the workers of the world resisting the ongoing genocide. We stand with the students who have organised for Palestine and whose protests have been met with repression by several Indian universities. Indian academia continues to receive funding from and collaborates with Israel. We call for an immediate cessation of this act of enabling occupation. We call for a total academic boycott of the Zionist entity – no more enabling of the coloniser’s knowledge production, which is a tool for genocide. The Zionist regime continues to murder academics and destroy schools, universities and libraries. We recall and honour the memory of professor, writer and poet Refaat Alareer. We urge Indian academics to see how Zionism is directly connected to the Hindutva machinery that continues to imprison Indian scholars like Hany Babu, GN Saibaba among others and student organisers like Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, among others, arrested for being dissenting voices. Our universities have long been bastions of resistance and we should strengthen our solidarities in knowledge production with the people worldwide facing violence. We learn from and honour Palestinian resistance in every form and remember Rafeef Ziadeh’s words, ‘We Teach Life, Sir! 

Following the call for strike on 8th March we put out this statement and will be participating with various actions in individual and collective capacities in solidarity with the people of Palestine. We learn from and honour Palestinian resistance in every form and remember Rafeef Ziadeh’s words, ‘We Teach Life, Sir! Actions can range from actively engaging in the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, raising awareness in-person and on media platforms, sending emails to government representatives to send aid to Gaza and push for permanent ceasefire, amplifying fundraisers, donating e-sims, and more. From Palestine to Sudan, Congo, Western Sahara, Kurdistan, Balochistan, Kashmir all the way to Haiti and Tigray—no one is free until everyone is free. We call for economic, academic, cultural and social boycott. We call upon organisers to honour the call for the strike by addressing and embracing the call for a free Palestine in their 8 March programs and events. We call for the end of patriarchal, capitalist, colonial regimes that oppress us. We demand immediate permanent ceasefire, end of the siege on Gaza, end to settler-colonial occupation and the dismantling of the Zionist state of Israel. We demand a free Palestine from the river to the sea.

Do make your support for the statement heard by posting on social media and handing out the handouts we have made here .

Do comment your organization’s name below to be added to the list of signatories.

Signed

Trans Queer Feminists in Solidarity with Palestine Feminists in Resistance, Kolkata  LGBT Academics collective, India COLLECTIVE, Delhi

[blackbullet99]

The Idiocy of Aang Haters

First of all. People have a right to hate Aang. But hardly any reasons I come across are valid. Case in point this idiot on Twitter (or X if you wanna call it that).

First of all Aang was never a “nice guy” he was genuinely good person, the only time he started acting possessive was in EIP and even then he realized his mistake by the end of the episode, it doesn’t make up the forefront of his personality. He cared about Katara he never ignored her emotional needs at all, he was literally Katara’s biggest fan and would do anything for her. Also what mythology supports Zutara?

The only time we see Zuko comfort Katara twice in the whole show, which are both nice moments showing Zuko is a compassionate person. But to act like Aang never comforts Katara and just stands there is objectively wrong. When Jet dies Aang simply places his hand on Katara’s shoulder and thus reassures her, he also comforts her after bloodbending. We see Aang support Katara by offering to take her to The North Pole to waterbend, he gives himself up to Zuko to save Katara’s home. He helps Katara commit eco-terorism, he literally helps brings fun and levity into Katara’s life.

Aang doesn’t see Katara as an object, again that point is objectively wrong. We see Aang is literally Katara’s biggest fan. He admires her for her heroism and compassion in Imprisoned and The Painted Lady. He admires and respects her as a Waterbender and his Sifu. Whenever Katara’s in danger he’ll drop everything to save her. Even when they disagree about something they usually calmly talk it out even if they disagree. To act like Aang doesn’t value Katara is a gross mischaracterization. Sure Aang has feelings for Katara, but they’re friends first, they have a friendship built on mutual trust/respect where they value each other outside of attraction and their feelings exist within their close bond and friendship.

Regarding Aang and Katara kissing. Their first kiss outside of the cave in Omashu was mutual, sure Aang initiated it and it surprised Katara but it’s not like it was a one-sided affair. The one in EIP was wrong definitely, but that’s the point, Aang misread the situation, Katara was rightfully annoyed and Aang realized that it was stupid. It ain’t that deep, and it’s not like Aang S/Aed Katara. Also Aang had a dream about kissing Katara, okay? How is that bad?

“Both Zuko and Katara are people who've been shaped by a life of hardship thrust upon them at a young age by no fault of their own and therefore had to mature extremely quickly in order to deal with their environment. It's why they understand each other so well but Aang doesn’t”. Aang literally lost his entire nation. He was forced to carry the weight the of the world as The Avatar, younger than most too. He left because of many reasons, the weight of the situation, her peers alienating him, threatened to be taken away from his father figure. When he returned he saw his entire race was killed and he literally saw said father figure’s corpse. Aang also had to mature quickly and experience hardship through no fault of his own. Both him and Katara are both victims of genocide and colonization, both of their parental figure were killed. Zuko is a victim of child abuse, which is still very bad. This idiot ignoring Aang’s trauma doesn’t surprise me, given how they straight up downplay the effects of genocide and act like it doesn’t effect Aang because he was absent for 100 years and because he’s still able enjoy life and have fun.

So much of these points are downright repulsive, I don’t even know where to begin, this heartless POS is literally downplaying a child seeing their father-figure’s dead body and even though Aang was gone for 100 years, from his perspective he literally left The Air Temple only a few days ago and there would’ve been Airbenders around if The Fire Nation didn’t attack. Additionally it’s not like the genocide didn’t affect Aang, it comes up constantly in multiple episodes, it’s a core part of his character, he has survivors guilt, it’s why he’s so determined to save the world this time, it one of the reasons why he was so broken up when Appa was taken. But apparently because Aang likes to have fun, it means he has no trauma, what a braindead take, so people who have trauma can’t have fun. Aang literally chooses to enjoy life and have fun DESPITE what he’s been through, and that’s an admirable characteristic, it’s not like Katara isn’t above fun, in fact she’s drawn Aang because of this. They probably think Zuko is super mature because he’s so serious and focused on finding The Avatar and isn’t shown having fun, because to this moron, having fun mean you have no trauma whatsoever.

Back to this guy’s main point, while there are similarities between nations. The Fire Nation literally has the most power of the four nations and was straight up colonizing and invading The Water Tribe. Zuko and Katara do both get angry, both Zuko is much quicker to anger and even then two people who both get mad isn’t a good match for couple, they literally shot themselves in the foot with that one. Katara is literally a Waterbending Prodigy, love Zuko, but he isn’t a prodigy. “They care deeply about the people close to them”, so does Aang, so does literally everyone in The Gaang.

Literally none of this idiot’s points make sense. They clearly don’t understand the show they claim to love or its characters. They obviously aren’t a real fan of this show and it’s painfully obvious that shipping has blinded them.

Not to mention this person is a POS for downplaying and denying the effects of genocide, but also posts racist stuff like this. Scumbags like this honestly don’t deserve to have a voice or an opinion and the world would honestly be better off without trash like this loser. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were a Zionist too.

[kloud002]

the indigenous coding of kurta clan

(tw: genocide)

i find it beautiful how kurapika's eyes turn a bright red whenever he feels strong emotions. how much more if i were to witness the entire kurta clan's eyes do the same altogether in a communal existence and celebration?

with that said, the indigenous coding of the kurta clan is very evident—in their domains, clothing, houses, cultural motifs and objects, form of governance, language, traditional healing practices, connection with nature and animals, and communal way of living.

they also share similar struggles and experiences with many indigenous and colonized peoples from all over the world. being discriminated by people outside their community because of their distinct feature, they're displaced from their original home and forced to occupy a secluded forest.

kurapika's mother recalled that their clan experienced so much discrimination and was hunted for their eyes, although this hasn't happened in many years. but kurapika's father pointed out that this hasn't occurred again only because they're constantly hiding and transferring from one location to another. they also couldn't freely explore outside their area as it would be life-threatening for them.

when kurapika and pairo went to the outside world, they were rejected and driven away when they showed signs of being physically deviant. they're seen as uncivilized savages, even being referred to as "red-eyed monsters" and "agents of the devil." the kurta clan was shunned or killed simply for existing and for being different.

they're alienated—barely perceived as humans. the kurta eyes are even seen as exotic goods and trophies. this mirrors the reality of how indigenous peoples are not only oppressed and persecuted but also viewed as exotic and mere objects for collection, therefore stripping them of their identity, culture, and humanity. the kurta clan was commodified for the same reasons that they're subjected to torment.

the kurta massacre and what transpired after it are both chilling and enraging. the whole clan—young and old, pureblood and not—was murdered when they were found. and they weren't just straight up killed, they're brutally made to feel suffering and immense grief for their loved ones before their lives are taken from them.

there was no justice for the genocide afterwards. just headlines that reported the event throughout the world 6 weeks later, no earlier than that. in the present, the kurta eyes continued to be sold and auctioned, diminished to a mere unique collectible regardless of its bloody history. kurapika knows that no one else can bring justice and conclusion to the deaths of his clan but him. he shall forever carry their collective rage and grief, stopping at nothing until he passes complete judgment to all of his clan's murderers.

something to note as well—it's glaringly obvious that the culprits carry heavy christian imagery and symbolism. so yes, kurapika's conflict with the phantom troupe can be interpreted as the indigenous peoples' struggle against the oppression and violence of government authorities and christianity (or religion, in general).

i have yet to form a solid analysis of the phantom troupe. so much to ponder about. for the kurta clan, this is it for now.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Reciprocity Benefits" cigar

"Uncle Sam - I'll smoke it, you may smell it."

From the Berlin (Kitchener) News Record, September 6 1911

[Context from my pal DN]: The 1911 federal election was the first "free trade" election. In office since 1896, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals sought their fifth consecutive sweeping majority. President Taft's proposal of lowering tariffs became the central political issue. Wrapped in the Union Jack, Robert Borden's Conservatives opposed free trade and argued that Canada would be taken over by the United States.

The election was close but the Conservatives came out ahead. The entrenched Liberal machine built around Laurier ensured the Liberals carried Quebec, but with a significant loss of seats to the Conservatives. The Liberals also carried Atlantic Canada, but just barely, signalling the crumbling of the old opposition to Confederation in the 1860s in which it was correctly predicted that losing free trade with New England would result in Atlantic Canadian industry being swallowed up by Montreal capital. The predictions came true, and Nova Scotia in particular suffered through a wave of deindustrializatoin in the 1880s and 1890s as Montreal capital bought up local concerns and shuttered them in favour of greater concentrations of industry in Montreal and the St. Lawrence Valley.

In the new prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Liberals continued to dominate as colonization rapidly expanded the number of farmers who quickly found themselves locked into an east-west trade cartel controlled by the rail monopolies of CPR, Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk Pacific (the latter two would be nationalized and form Canadian National in 1919). The farmers were incensed that they were blocked from trading south to American markets at cheaper freight rates.

The Conservatives cut into Liberal support in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but the bulk of its support came from Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia - the three Anglo provinces where industrial capitalism had taken hold during the "Second Industrial Revolution" that began in the 1890s. Not only that, but Ontario, Manitoba and BC were politically dominated by the most militant Anglo founders of Confederation. Through the Orange Terror of the 1870s against the Métis and their democratic allies, and a sustained political struggle against French language schooling rights, the bilingual and multicultural character of Manitoba had been legally and politically extinguished by the mid-1890s (and was a contributing factor to Laurier's Liberals winning the 1896 election, ending 18 years of Conservative rule).

Likewise, British Columbia was politically loyal to the project of Confederation. It had been aggressively established as a British colonial outpost in the 1850s for the Empire's project of a united British North America and establishing a British base in the northwestern Pacific. The 1860s was marked by a series of colonial wars and punitive expeditions by British gunboats, redcoats and settler terrorist groups. Colonial victory was achieved with the deliberate smallpox genocide of Indigenous peoples on Vancouver Island which spread to Haida Gwaii and the mainland. Estimates of 15,000 to 30,000 Indigenous peoples died in a year - half the Indigenous population of Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii. White people in Victoria, population 5,000 in 1862, were busy getting vaccinated, the smallpox vaccine having been discovered decades before available in the Pacific Northwest by the 1850s. By 1911, British Columbia had become a major coal and lumber exporter and the terminus of three new transcontinental railroads (CPR at Port Moody and Granville; Canadian Northern at Port Mann and later Pacific Central Station; Grand Trunk Pacific at Prince Rupert).

It seemed like the Conservatives had re-established their once-powerful "National Policy" coalition of British imperialists, Canadian capitalists and the Anglo working class. However, the Second Industrial Revolution, the two new transcontinental railways, and colonization of the prairies had radically expanded and altered the character of the industrial working class and the role of the state in society. The brewing rebellion of farmers, the Vancouver Coal Wars of 1912-1914, the great IWW strike of the Grand Trunk Pacific in 1913, and the success of state capitalist development (Ontario Hydro Commission - 1906, Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway - 1902, King's Industrial Disputes Investigation Act - 1907) were all harbingers of radical change that exploded with the pressure cooker of the Great War.

Farmers struck out on their own after the war with farmer parties taking power in Ontario (1919), Alberta (1921) and Manitoba (1922). The working-class insurgency of 1919 shook the ruling class and forged a broad and complex vanguard of radical working-class politics and action that formed a foundation for the great class struggles of the 1930s and 1940s.

The Conservatives, during and immediately following the war, were pressed to concede the vote of women, albeit through opportunistic means to win the 1917 election in favour of conscription, nationalize the CNoR and Grand Trunk in 1919, and lose its popular "producer" base that had won it power in 1911 and undergirded its electoral success during the first 30 years of Confederation.

Ever the opportunists, the Liberals under King abandoned the free trade mantra and spent the next 30 years overseeing the renovation of the Canadian state in the interest of capital while playing a ruthless game of stick, carrot and more stick against the growing insurgency of the "producer" classes which had grown too large and self-conscious to contain within a bourgeois two-party system.

The next seventy years would hold to this pattern until the economic base of the farmer and labour movements had sufficiently crumbled by the 1980s, at which point the Progressive Conservatives (a name courtesy of a 1940s merger of the Conservatives and a section of the farmer-based Progressives) pulled the plug on the National Policy of protective tariffs and home market development in favour of free trade with the United States.

With Mulroney's victory in the 1988 "free trade" election and subsequent refusal of provincial governments to challenge the free trade agreement (Bob Rae promised he would during his successful 1990 election campaign), the old 20th century political arrangements have collapsed. The small farmer class has disappeared to political insignificance. The working-class has been radically transformed since deindustrialization and free trade. The three-party political system that dominated the 1919-1990 period has collapsed and been remade with new coalitions of forces and factions - even if the party names carry forward into a new century.

With one "producer" class still standing - the working class - and the colonial and capitalist failures of Confederation coming home to roost at home and abroad, can a new vision and program for Canada be forged by a new working-class movement?

[nyiibat]

No let’s talk about it, because the arguments that oh “Natives ate people” “Natives owned slaves” or any other bullshit colonizers wanna spew

Some tribes were cannibalistic those tribes have since died out in turtle island. Y’all don’t say absolute shit about the cannibalistic tribes in other parts of the world.

A small amount of indigenous tribes owned slaves during colonial imperialism, in fact a lot of native women were also slaves while the men were killed and the children were taken to residential schools but y’all don’t want to talk about that.

Some tribes went to war over territories centuries before colonization it’s why we have nations now and treaties between ourselves and the governments. Only natives actually hold up our ends.

Thanksgiving is a celebration of a genocide that is still being carried out today.

Fourth of July is a celebration of stolen land, a birth of a nation on the blood of native Americans and enslaved people they had build their iron jungles.

Half of y’all wouldn’t even know that turkeys are sacred animals, that colonizers Ate natives, that the first “celebration” was an ambush of colonizers trying to take over and control us.

Fire works on the forth of July represent the bombs and muskets being fired at us for trying to keep Europeans from settling on our lands.

Learn something before y’all speak on indigenous issues.

Listen. Something don’t sit right with me when you say something tragic regarding indigenous people, and the comments under the videos are WELL NATIVES SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF TRIBES! THEY ATE PEOPLE! THEY OWNED SLAVES!

I see those videos from time to time.

I don’t think I realised how much my dad’s words stuck out in my brain till recently.

Or how God awful they were.

My dad used to say that. Frequently.

One: there are thousands of tribes. No one tribe is the same. You’re looking at me like I myself murdered and ate a human, wiped someone else’s tribe off the map, and owned a bunch of slaves.

Yes some historical records indicate that the Piscataway owned slaves in Maryland during the colonial area.

That doesn’t change anything else, and kinda just makes you sound like a monster.

And people continue to make these videos, especially around Thanksgiving, and it’s like 🫤 this is unnecessary.

Idc eat your damn pumpkin pie, don’t say well natives deserved it. They were killing just as many tribes as we were, as least we built a country.

Okay- fuck you Hans.

Same goes for slavery.

THEY WERE SELLING SLAVES BEFORE US👹

That doesn’t CHANGE what else happened motherfucker.

Yes both of these things happened. Bringing up what Egyptians, Arabs, natives, did prior to European powers does not and will NOT change what happened because of European powers.

Also swear to God if someone gets their hands on a post like this again and claims I hate Europeans you’re making shit up.

I’m half European 🫤

I love my European family and I love most Europeans.

Unless you specifically have given me reason to dislike you, I do not dislike you.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

Not only will people say that everything Loki does is because a calculated evil plan, there are people who will try to justify imperialism and say Odin's brutal conquest of the nine realms was to bring peace

People love imperialistic propaganda for some reason.

As much as I love the Thor movies that's something they probably did wrong, and the biggest offender here is Ragnarok. They had a few quotes here and there about imperialism and Asgard's interventionism and colonization of the 9 realms, but all of them came from Hela.

HELA: "Does no one remember me? Has no one been taught our history? Look at these lies. Goblets and garden parties? Peace treaties? Odin... proud to have it... ashamed of how he got it"

HELA: "We were unstoppable. I was his weapon in the conquest that built Asgard's empire. One by one, the realms became ours. But then, simply because my ambition outgrew his, he banished me, caged me, locked me away like an animal. Before that, Asgard's warriors were honored, their bodies buried as heroes beneath this very place"

HELA: "When I was young every great King had an executioner. Not just to execute people, but also to execute their vision. But mainly to execute people. Still a great honor. I was Odin's executioner"

HELA: "Odin and I drowned entire civilizations in blood and tears. Where do you think all this gold came from? And then one day he decided to become a benevolent king. To foster peace, to protect life. To have you"

All these quotes are great but I have two main issues with them:

The first is that the narrative even though it mentions the genocide it always turns into something personal. Look at Hela's second quote: She's talking about the conquest... then the attention is moved somewhere else, to the Odinson family and their issues. Then she talks about colonization, blood and the stealing of goods but it's just a passing line until they switch the focus onto something else.

The second is that I would have loved to see Thor expressing himself as well. He had been lied to his whole life, all that history and the battles he had taken part in as well all came from the indoctrination his father carried out not only on him but every single person on Asgard. Thor was always supposed to be the one to break the cycle, to acknowledge all the pain and suffering his father had caused (something like what T'Challa did with his father in Black Panther).

But at the end of the movie Thor just takes the throne and nothing more is said about Odin and his evil ways. Hela is deemed a villain for being involved in the massacres but Odin is somewhat off the hook because he had a change of mind. That's ridiculous.

It's like we're supposed to accept he did something bad in the past but we shouldn't talk about it, and that's no way to tackle imperialism - especially when Taika was so adamant his movie was groundbreaking in that regard.

[ozarkhealingtraditions]

Animism and Environmental Protection

More articles on my website! 

Animism lies at the heart of Ozark folk belief, although it’s a modern word you probably won’t hear many of the old timers using. In the mountains, this worldview manifests as a deep connection to the land, in particular the local bioregions that surround the individual and community. Old trees, caverns, natural springs, rivers, etc. are viewed not as lifeless land features, but rather as unique personalities with their own lifecycles and souls. Solitary trees in fields are often said to be protected by the “Little People” or Ozark land spirits, akin to the fairies from across the Celtic world, brought to these lands in the hearts of believers. Old growth trees hold their own roles within the spiritual hierarchy and often go by the names of “grandpa” or “grandma.” Natural springs were at one time fiercely protected by hillfolk because of their life-giving waters, used not only to sustain the body but also as sources of spiritual cleansing and healing. Legends and folktales abound about the invisible owners of certain caverns or large boulders that often stand out against the wash of the forest landscape.

Traditional views toward appeasing the land spirits is often simplified to maintaining a good relationship with these otherworldly inhabitants. Protecting and maintaining springs or allowing certain parts of the forest to remain wild are just a couple examples of this important take on environmental protection. A good balance with the natural world was at one time integral to not only the physical survival of hillfolk, but also a means to ensure good spiritual health for the community. This is an equilibrium lost to many modern inhabitants of the Ozarks with more and more reliance shifting off the land itself and onto local grocery stores, city water, and the pharmacy. For many though, this balance is still seen as a part of the Ozark identity. I myself have encountered many old timers who still give offerings of food, smoke, water, and other traditional items to these places of power in order to keep this tapestry of life intact.

This relationship with the land has birthed many traditions of environmental protection amongst those still living closely with the plants and animals of the mountains. It’s a culture rooted in the views of animism, which sees everything in the natural world as possessing its own unique identity. As opposed to many pantheistic worldviews, animism is deeply connected to the spirits of the local landscape as opposed to “higher” beings like gods and goddesses. The spirit of a mountain spring is then unique amongst other entities that might surround it. These guardians are often said to have had their own births at one time in the ancient past. Likewise, they aren’t always considered immortal. The destruction of these places of power then means the death of the individual spirit itself.

On one of my travels, I met an old man who was still shaken by the removal of a huge boulder near his home to make way for a modern road nearly thirty years before my arrival. His family had been on their land for several generations and recalled to mind many of their folktales about the spirits or Little People who had their villages inside the rock itself. It was common knowledge to the local community that disrespecting the rock would bring a curse not only upon the individual themselves, but also their family. This spiritual affliction would manifest as strange illnesses without any physical cure, and it was said the only remedy was apologizing to the Little People and making amends with certain food offerings. In a particularly sad part of our conversation, the old man said when the road crew removed and destroyed the boulder it sent a shockwave through his family. They themselves didn’t see any curses from the removal but he reckoned anyone who was a part of the work had. I asked him what he thought might have happened to the villages displaced by the act and he just shook his head saying, “When something like that happens, they’re [Little People] killed off…they can’t survive outside their homes.” In his words, this act was akin to genocide. It was almost as if members of his own family had been taken away to a very uncertain future.

This was by no means an isolated story and I’ve encountered many people, old timers and young folk alike across the Ozarks with similar tales of cutting down old growth forests, plugging up springs, and more. One woman I met said her family protected an old patch of ginseng near their family home for many generations. “Probably the last one around these parts,” she told me. Because the patch wasn’t on their land, they were unable to protect it from eventual clearing for new construction as the local town expanded. She still cursed the name of the developer, although he’d been dead for years. According to her, the ginseng had put a curse on his family for their disrespect. She said shortly after the houses were built, they had trouble with fires and power outages limited only to that spot. In addition, she said the developer’s family all became “sickly,” and eventually moved away from the area. Whether this tale was true or not, I don’t know, but there were others in the area with similar anecdotes about the situation.

When viewed in these terms, protecting the local environment takes on a very different life from simple ecology. The land is protected not just because of the vital food, water, and medicine it might provide, but because the spirits of the land become members of the family or clan itself. The same respect is shown to these invisible members of the community as it is to the living. Just like a person wouldn’t bulldozer over someone’s house, rip out a home garden, or poison a well, the land spirits are respected and left to their own lives and communities. Maintaining this equilibrium with the natural world then recognizes the vital importance the land has to offer to all those living there.

This belief has been such an important part of the Ozark worldview not just here on colonized land, but it stretches back to our ancient ancestors who didn’t see themselves as being separate or above the natural world but as just another link in the chain. The spirits of the land are important because they’re seen as being individual entities with their own stories, wisdom, and magic to offer. Just like when we lose our own tales, remedies, and other traditional knowledge with the passing of the older generations, never to regain them again, how much have we lost from ignoring the spirits of the land? How many grandpas and grandmas have been lost to us by being thrown into the gears of materialism and so-called progress?

For many people today, this animistic worldview is foreign to our modern mindset. Protecting the environment is left to those struggling in the Amazon rainforests, or those fighting for their rights to clean sources of water. We somehow see ourselves as too forgone, perhaps, or wholly apart from the problem. And meanwhile, our mountains are being leveled for new cookie-cutter housing subdivisions, forests uprooted to make straighter roads, and native prairies dug up and replaced with invasive ornamental plants not suited to our climate and local wildlife. Working towards healing this equilibrium starts with you and your home. Here are some other ways you can help protect the land.

Instead of planting invasive ornamentals like privet, bush honeysuckle, nandina, or bamboo, consult local nurseries that specialize in native alternatives. In many cases, native varieties of plants have much more to offer. They are usually better suited to our climate, require less water, and provide a plentiful source of food for both pollinators and birds. They also add to the seedbank of the land. Seeds travel across large stretches of land by air or are carried by local wildlife. Planting with natives ensures the spread of these important species that are too often shaded out and killed by invasive varieties. You can even help out if you’re living in an apartment with little access to the land. Several friends of mine living in apartments have started planting native flowers in pots on their balconies to attract local pollinators. Many of these wildflowers are also edible and used in traditional Ozark medicines.

Reconsider removing large trees on your property and instead try and maintain them by trimming properly.

Spay and neuter your outdoor cats and participate in local programs to catch and release feral cats. Along with deforestation, outdoor cats are the number one source of native songbird loss here in the Ozarks.

Consider volunteering with groups who help to return natural areas to a more sustainable system. There are several here in Northwest Arkansas who go out to the local trails at certain times of the year and pull out invasive plant species that are killing out the native varieties. If you don’t have a group around you, consider starting one! Consult your local extension office for guides to invasive plants affecting the area.

Protect springs and other natural water sources by volunteering to clean up trash around the area. If you’re unsure of how to clean and maintain natural springs on your own property, contact your local extension office.

Honor the spirits of old trees, springs, and mountains with traditional Ozark offerings of loose tobacco, cornmeal, beans, milk, and water.

Many of these suggestions are doable not only for people who own land but even for those living in apartments or on small lots. Whether you’re someone interested in animism as a worldview, an environmental protection advocate, or even someone who doesn’t really like going outside, it’s important to reconsider your own relationship to the land and help out where you feel comfortable. Extreme actions like chaining yourself to an old growth tree about to be removed aren’t required for caring about the natural world around you.

[abla-soso]

Zionism is a colonial ideology that explicitly relies on the forceful removal of the native population from its homeland.

Israel as a state was created and funded by settler colonialism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and the many massacres of civilians, headed by self-proclaimed "colonizers" and "terrorists" who went on to carry out even worse crimes while being the head of the state.

Yet time and time again, Israel gives the world some false, sad story about how the Zionists were just innocent immigrants fleeing from a genocide and how it’s the Palestinians who fought them just because they didn't want to peacefully co-exist with Jews, and how the Arabs refused to accept the partition plan and fought against the establishment of Israel because they hate Jews, etc., etc.

But it’s clear to anyone familiar with real history and familiar with the writing of Zionist founders and Zionist militant groups that the Zionist goal was always to control the entirety of Palestinian territory and to have all of the Palestinians removed from it all.

Zionism's colonial nature was explicit from the outset and was leveraged as a selling point to gain European support.

When colonialism began to lose legitimacy, the term was retired.

Let's take a walk through history, to what Zionist leaders themselves said:

In 1862's 'Rome and Jerusalem,' perhaps the earliest Zionist text, Moses Hess asked France to "help the Jews to found colonies which may extend from Suez to Jerusalem and from the banks of the Jordan to the coast of the Mediterranean."

In 1891, leading Zionist thinker Asher Ginsburg (Ahad Ha'am) wrote that "when the life of our people in Palestine will develop to such an extent as to push out, to a small or large extent, the indigenous population of the country, then not easily will they give up their place."

Israel Zangwill, British leader of the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO), wrote in 1904 of "a difficulty from which the Zionist dare not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it." It was that "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants." So what was his solution? "We must be prepared...to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did."

Similarly, Chaim Weizmann referred to Palestinians as "the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path."

In late August 1898, the Second Zionist Congress established the Jewish Colonial Trust, the financial arm of the World Zionist Organization and the first official Zionist bank. In 1902, the Anglo-Palestine Company Ltd. was founded as a subsidiary of the Jewish Colonial Trust.

In 1902, Theodor Herzl, father of political Zionism, begged Cecil Rhodes to support the Zionist project and facilitate Jewish settlement of Palestine. Zionism was in Britain's imperial interest, Herzl suggested, "Because it is something colonial." 

In his 1926, address to Nat'l Conference of the United Palestine Appeal in Boston, Weizmann said Palestinians "are in the country, and have been there for ages. We are the newcomers and have to become part and parcel of the country. We are planting a new people in the country.

In 1929, early Labor Zionist intellectual Berl Katznelson declared, "Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest," admitting that "it is by no chance that I use military terms when speaking of settlement."

The Jewish Agency, formed in 1929 by the 16th Zionist Congress, was (and is still) tasked with increasing Jewish immigration to Palestine. Its fundraising arm originally operated under the auspices of World Zionist Organization's aptly-named "Colonization Department."

In 1930, Menachem Usshishkin, a powerful early pioneer of Zionism and leading member of the Jewish National Fund, stated, "If there are other inhabitants there [in Palestine], they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land."

In 1936, Ussishkin commented, "Now the [Palestinian] Arabs do not want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land...because this country belongs to us not to them."

In 1936, another leading Zionist, Arthur Ruppin, who led colonization efforts through the Jewish National Fund, declared, "On every site where we purchase land and where we settle people, the present cultivators will inevitably be dispossessed."

In June 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote to Jewish Agency head Moshe Shertok, "Were I an Arab...I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly, and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule."

On October 5, 1937, David Ben-Gurion sent a letter to his son Amos in which he wrote that "Palestine...contains vast colonization potential which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of need) to exploit."

Ben-Gurion told the 20th Zionist Congress in August 1937, "New Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab peasantry," adding, "Jewish power in the country...will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale."

At the November 21, 1937 meeting of Jewish Agency's Transfer Committee, Yosef Weitz, Land Department chief at the Jewish National Fund, boasted that "transfer" not only "diminish[es] the Arab population," but also "release[s] it for Jewish inhabitants."

In 1938, Ben-Gurion reaffirmed these sentiments: "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. Politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down." At the same time, Ussishkin insisted, "We cannot start the Jewish state with...half the population being Arab...Such a state cannot survive even half an hour." Regarding the forcible ethnic cleansing of over sixty thousand Palestinian families, he added: "It is most moral." Ruppin agreed: "I do not believe in the transfer of individuals. I believe in the transfer of entire villages." He also wrote, "Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine...We are bound in each case...to remove the peasants who cultivate the land."

Moshe Shertok, Jewish Agency chief and later Israel's second prime minister, said, "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it."

On March 20, 1941, the Jewish Agency's Yosef Weitz wrote, "The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer."

In 1941, Weitzmann told Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador to England, that "if half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews could be put in their place. That, of course, would be a first installment; what might happen afterwards [would be] a matter for history."

In a 1941, memorandum entitled "Outlines of the Zionist Policy", Ben-Gurion recognized that "the majority of the Arabs could hardly be expected to leave voluntarily," noting, "Complete transfer without compulsion – and ruthless compulsion, at that – is hardly imaginable."

In mid-1947, the Jewish Agency presented its position to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. It declared "industrial development in Palestine" was "part of...the migration of industry from the old industrial countries to colonial or semi-colonial territories."

During the presentation, Chaim Weizmann-later Israel's 1st president-stated, "As compared with the result of the colonizing activities of other peoples, our impact on the Arabs has not produced very much worse results than what has been produced by others in other countries."

Moshe Shertok, Israel's 2nd prime minister, boasted of Zionism to the UNSCOP, saying "it will not be easy to find an instance in the history of colonization where a large scale settlement scheme has been conducted with so much respect for the interests of existing population."

Founder and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress Nahum Goldmann recalled Ben-Gurion saying in 1956, "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country."

In 1969, Moshe Dayan declared, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

In 23rd of October, 1973, when the former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked  Ben‐Gurion: "What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’, Ben‐Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: "Drive them out".

[anarchy101]

What would an anarchist program look like?

by CrimethInc

An Anarchist Program

0. The Ends Are the Means

Those who support an anarchist program live and organize in a way that makes the program imminently possible, not in some distant future after a dictatorial party has acquired power. This represents a completely different way of creating power starting right now.

Nothing in this program, not even the abolition of the state, can justify means of struggle that would not be at home in the world we wish to inhabit, nor the postponing of questions of freedom and well-being until after some state of exception that we dress up as a revolution.

1. Mutual Survival

Under capitalism, no one has a right to survival. We are all forced to pay for the means of survival—and some of us can’t. Millions of people die every year from easily preventable causes; billions live in misery because they are denied the means for a healthy, dignified life. That ends now.

A. Every person and every community has a right to their means of survival.

B. It follows that persons and communities that choose to constitute themselves in a way that destroys others’ means of survival, or that withhold those means in exchange for some service (exploitation), are destroying the possibility for mutual survival. Therefore, their “way of life” does not constitute survival—it endangers survival.

C. Persons and communities are right to defend themselves against exploitation or threats to their means of survival, preferably by convincing those who threaten or exploit them to change their way of life to a more harmonious, mutually feasible pattern—but also, if necessary, by force.

D. Conflict and death have always been a part of life, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. With current technologies, attempts to stave off death are predicated on multiplying deaths among those who lack access to such technologies. It follows that survival is not the absence of death, but the possibility for a healthy and fulfilling life, as well as the possibility to pass something of that life on to future generations.

E. In this sense, the opposite of life is not death, but extermination, the total annihilation of a group, including even the destruction of the memory of that group. Extermination belongs to the state. It precludes the possibility of mutual survival.

2. Decolonization

Colonization is crucial to the global spread of capitalism and the devastation it has entailed. This devastation has ongoing repercussions at every level. Colonization is the basis of the United States; it has also been foundational to the major European states that functioned as the architects of the current global system of statism and capitalism. T3. Reparations and Ending Anti-Blacknesshe partial revolutions of the 20th century did not alter the basic colonial frameworks they inherited. All of this must change.

A. Colonized peoples have a right to reconstitute their communities, their languages and knowledge systems, their territories, and their organizational systems. All of these are fluid realities that members of such communities adapt to their present needs.

B. Settler societies must be destroyed. Because they are so historically ingrained, their abolition will not be a single moment of compensation (as though a price tag could be attached to all the suffering that has been caused), but a complex and evolving process. Indigenous communities should be able to define what decolonization looks like from a position of strength and healing, such as the abolition of the United States (and Canada and other nations) will allow. This is also necessary to break with the gunboat diplomacy that has characterized much of settler colonialism.

C. By definition, we cannot and will not define the limits of decolonization from the present moment, from within the reality of a settler society. Anarchists, Indigenous and otherwise, favor models of decolonization that break with colonial logics and repudiate nation-states, ethnic essentialism, punitive and genocidal practices, and mere reforms regarding who holds state power.

D. Settler communities that have historically and to the present day played the role of an aggressive and hostile neighbor helping to police and exploit Native communities in the reservation system will be encouraged to disband, and will be treated as paramilitaries if they continue any form of hostility. All “Man Camps” will be disbanded immediately, and resources will be dedicated to helping find missing Indigenous women and two-spirit people.

E. Universities, museums, and other institutions will return all bodies, body parts, art, and artifacts stolen from Indigenous communities.

F. It is right for Indigenous communities to recover all the territory they need for their full cultural, spiritual, and material survival.

G. Priority might be given to recovering land of spiritual importance, land that had belonged to the government, and large commercial holdings—but again, preconceived limitations should not be placed on how decolonization will unfold.

H. Communities in countries that maintained external colonial projects (e.g., the United Kingdom, Spain, France) will facilitate a large-scale transfer of useful resources expropriated from their abolished governments, the wealthy, and institutions that existed to serve the wealthy (e.g., private hospitals). These resources will go to communities in the ex-colonies.

A composition by Afro-Futurist artist Olalekan Jeyifous, part of a series exploring alternative futures for Brooklyn.

3. Reparations and Ending Anti-Blackness

Anti-Blackness and other forms of racism are fundamental to the current power structure. They grew out of colonialism and capitalism from the very beginning, to such an extent that capitalism is inseparable from racism, though the latter can take many forms. It is impossible to fully abolish these power structures without striking at the historically grounded legacies of racism.

A. Communities of people largely descended from the survivors of slavery are right to take over large landholdings that had previously been plantations, as well as the excess wealth of families and institutions that profited off of slave labor. This redistribution should be carried out on a communal rather than an individual basis, to avoid encouraging identitarian processes that declare individuals legitimate or illegitimate based on abstract criteria. Those who organize a collective or communal expropriation have the right to define their own experiences and how oppression has affected them historically, as well as to choose how to constitute themselves and whom to invite into their community.

B. Historically racialized neighborhoods that have been gentrified may be reclaimed. Because many neighborhoods, before gentrification, are in fact quite diverse and working class people of all races can lose their homes, those who are involved in housing and anti-racist struggles at the time of the revolution may form assemblies to organize the process of inviting people back into reclaimed neighborhoods, for example prioritizing prior residents or their children, and finding ways to strike a balance between revitalizing Black and other cultures of resistance and creating practices of cross-racial solidarity that break down the segregations and separations of racism.

C. People in neighborhoods that are infrastructurally unsound or unsanitary, that suffer from environmental racism or other harmful effects that will continue causing health problems into the foreseeable future, may expropriate and move into wealthy neighborhoods (preferentially targeting the wealthiest). The prior residents of those neighborhoods may move into the vacated, substandard neighborhood with an eye towards improving it through their own effort, or they may move into other unused housing, of which there is plenty, thanks to capitalist real estate markets.

D. Weapons taken from the disbanded police and military will be distributed among Black, Indigenous, and other racialized communities, and to volunteer militias that fought unambiguously on the anti-racist side during the entirety of the revolutionary conflict. The communities will decide what is to be done with the weapons—whether to distribute, store, or dismantle them.

E. Resources related to education and healthcare may be taken from wealthy neighborhoods for the benefit of racialized neighborhoods.

F. The onus is on white anti-capitalists, or more correctly, anti-capitalists in the process of definitively breaking with their whiteness, to work with other white people to achieve a process of reparations that is as peaceful as possible, to help them move to other neighborhoods or territories in the case that they are evicted, to soften their landing and help them find the means for dignified survival, without creating entrenched identities or resentment that might encourage intergenerational conflicts or keep whiteness alive.

G. Assemblies of people committed to the relevant causes at the time of the revolution will set up truth and reconciliation committees to deal with whatever racist atrocities are brought to their attention, such as the forced sterilizations carried out in ICE facilities. The processes for uncovering the truth of these atrocities and achieving some kind of reconciliation will not be purely symbolic, and they need not delegitimize personal acts of revenge, but they will strive for some form of collective healing and transformative justice rather than punitive and carceral measures.4. Land

All the following points of the program are contingent on points 1-3 being put in motion in a way that is satisfactory to those who have suffered white supremacy, colonization, and racial capitalism. The rights and principles in point 4, for example, about access to land, must not be used to thwart efforts by Indigenous communities to get their Land Back.

The Esselen Tribe inhabited this land across the Big Sur coast of California for more than 6000 years, until Spanish colonizers seized it. Their claim to it was only recently acknowledged by the courts.

4. Land

The way capitalism and Western civilization have taught us to think about the land and the way to treat it has brought us to the brink of disaster. The paradigm of land as property, as a resource to be exploited, is simultaneously a failure and a travesty. The commodification of land has been instrumental to colonialism and exploitation, while the measuring, demarcation, and assertion of dominion over land has been central to the state throughout its history.

A. Land is a living thing. Land cannot be bought and sold.

B. Land belongs to those who belong to it, which is to say, those who take care of it and those whose survival is based on it.

C. Land should be respected. Communities should consider the personhood of the land and all other beings that exist in relation with it. The idea that only humans of a predetermined type have personhood is responsible for a large part of the disaster we face.

D. Land is the basis for survival, and all land is interconnected.

E. It follows that defense of the land is self-defense, and is therefore right.

F. A community that exists in an intimate, localized relationship with the land, or a community that historically has had such a relationship and proved to be good stewards of the land, will probably know best how to interrelate with a specific territory. Others should defer to them in questions regarding defending and caring for the land.

G. It is the responsibility of all communities to aid and accompany the land as it heals from centuries of capitalism and the state.

5. Water

Water is life.

A. All communities must return the water they use to the river, lake, or aquifer as clean as they found it.

B. All communities have a responsibility to help their watershed heal and purify itself after centuries of capitalist aggression.

C. In view of climate change, desertification, and all the other forms of damage to the planet, all communities have a responsibility to adapt their lifeways in the event of water scarcity, and to help each other to migrate if increasing water scarcity and desertification render a dignified survival impossible.

D. In the event of water scarcity, priority for water use is given to localized forms of sustainable agriculture and to preserving the habitats of other forms of life.

E. Polluting the water or taking so much that others downstream or in the same aquifer do not have enough for a dignified survival is an act of aggression.

F. Communities should respond to assaults on their water with attempts at dialogue and negotiation, but if these attempts are fruitless, they are right to defend themselves.

Garden River First Nation’s railroad bridge.

6. Borders

The global system we are abolishing is based on states asserting sovereignty over clearly demarcated borders, alternately cooperating and competing in capitalist accumulation and warfare. Nation-states have always led to cultural and linguistic homogenization and genocide, and borders have revealed themselves to be increasingly murderous mechanisms. All that, henceforth, is abolished.

A. People and communities, in concert, decide what communities they want to be a part of, and how they wish to be constituted, respectively. This is the principle of voluntary association.

B. All together, as best we can, we will develop principles of Freedom of Movement, balanced with a respect for the communities that are the custodians of the territories others wish to move through. These two principles necessitate the abolition of borders, on the one hand, and the abolition of individualistic, entitled tourism on the other. It is reasonable for communities, which exist in relation to a specific territory, to expect privacy as well as basic respect from visitors; at the same time, it is good for people to be able to move freely in search of a better life or even simply because movement brings them joy and well-being. These two rights, such as they are, may come into conflict. Communities and individuals commit to resolving those conflicts as constructively as possible.

C. Communities commit to offering basic hospitality and safe conduct to migrants. This could include migrants who wish to return home, having been forced to emigrate by the effects of capitalism. It could include the migration of entire communities fleeing the long-term effects of environmental racism.

D. Communities will coordinate across territories as they see fit. This could include federations organized along linguistic lines (for the sake of convenience), coordinating bodies in a shared watershed, and more. Anarchists recommend redundant, overlapping forms of organization, as well as membership in multiple communities, to resist the potentially militaristic reproduction of bordered units or essentialist identities.

A way to reorganize living environments as imagined by anarchist artist Clifford Harper.

7. Housing

Even governments that enshrine the right to housing in their constitutions have failed to guarantee this basic need. As Malatesta pointed out, capitalism is the system in which builders go homeless because there are too many houses.

A. Houses belong to those who live in them.

B. No one has a right to more houses than they need. This should not be reduced to a principle of “one family, one house,” because of the danger in normalizing one model of the family, and because some dynamic families include movement between multiple nodes, and to respect pastoral and other societies organized around seasonal migrations. However, this does mean that the vacation houses of the rich are fair game for expropriation for those who need access to land or decent housing.

C. Housing is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

D. Communities will make sure all their own members have dignified housing, and then they will help neighboring communities find the resources they need to meet their housing needs.

E. Anarchists will encourage the transformation of housing, which capitalist real estate development and urban planning utilized specifically to promote patriarchal nuclear families. People are encouraged to change their vital spaces in a way that enables more communal practices of kinship, child-rearing practices not based in the heterosexual couple, and autonomous spaces for women and gender nonconforming people.

F. Anarchists will make it a priority to provide safe housing for people fleeing abusive relationships and circumstances.

G. Communities will begin immediately, within their means, to modify housing to be ecologically sustainable, and to modify settlement patterns so that housing nuclei correspond to ecological and cultural needs, moving away from the present reality in which existing housing corresponds to the imperatives of capitalism. As this process will take decades, communities should develop plans and share ideas for organizing the transition, taking into account that there will be a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and changes in the availability of different construction materials.

H. Evicting people from their houses is an emotionally traumatizing act that we do not want to form a part of the world we are building. However, many historically oppressed communities find themselves living in situations that directly shorten their lives, whereas the ostentatious housing of rich people represents generations of accumulated plunder; in those cases, it is better for them to take the housing of those who profited off their misery than to continue in misery. Under capitalism, there is no inalienable right to remain in a particular house, and we are not carrying out a revolution in order to give rights to rich people they did not even claim under their own chosen system.

Christiania, an autonomous neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark.

8. Food

A key aspect of capitalist accumulation has been the industrialization and hyper-exploitation of food producers, both human farmers and other forms of life, trying to squeeze out an ever-growing surplus. This has led to the acts of genocide associated with the commodification of the land, the total destruction of peasant societies, deforestation and monocrop deserts, mass starvation, mass extinction, pollution, climate change, dead zones in the ocean, the destruction and commodification of communities of different living beings, the murder of living soil, and the systematized imprisonment and torture of non-human animals. How we feed ourselves is a nexus that brings together how we organize our society and the relationships we create with the broader ecosystem.

A. Everyone has a right to all the food they need for a healthy, dignified life.

B. Making sure that everyone has enough food is a collective responsibility.

C. Arbitrarily placing limits on or destroying the food supply that others depend on is an assault on their survival. They may respond to this with legitimate self-defense.

D. Workers in food production industries at the time of the revolution will socialize the means of production under their control with the aim of ensuring everyone’s access to food.

E. Communities will begin the process of redistributing large tracts of farmland and reclaiming land in urban environments to enable food sovereignty and to share access to the means to feed ourselves.

F. Agriculture will transition away from the current petroleum-dependent, highly industrialized model to a localized, ecocentric model designed to fulfill two purposes: ensuring food security and restoring the health of the planet. The human diet will be resituated in an ecosystemic logic.

G. Particularly damaging technologies like factory trawlers and animal warehouses for industrial-scale meat and dairy production will be dismantled as quickly as possible.

A collective meal at Ungdomshuset, an autonomous social center in Copenhagen.

9. Healthcare

Under capitalism and the state, healthcare has been used as a form of extortion to keep poor people in misery and in debt, to surveil, discipline, and control our bodies, and particularly to torture and control women, trans and non-binary people, racialized people, and people with different abilities and mental health difference. It is one of the most damning indictments of the present system that the practices that should focus on healing function as a venue for cruelty and profiteering.

A. Everyone has a right to preventive therapies and living conditions that guarantee them the best possible health.

B. Everyone has a right to define for themselves what constitutes health, in dialogue with their community. People who share a collective experience or identity related to gender, sexuality, physical ability, mental health, ethnicity, or anything else, may develop their own definition or ideal of health; members of those groups are free to subscribe to those definitions or not to subscribe to them.

C. Everyone has a right to alter their body, in line with their gender expression or for whatever reason, as they see fit. People have an unrestricted right to contraceptives and abortion.

D. No healthcare worker can be forced to perform a procedure that they do not agree with, but denying someone access to a medical procedure is an assault on their bodily autonomy. Training in skills related to healthcare will be spread as widely as possible so no one is ever in the position of gatekeeping access to healthcare.

E. Everyone has a right to the full extent of treatment available to them in their community, or to travel in search of better conditions or better treatment options.

F. Healthcare workers at the time of the revolution will socialize the hospitals and other institutions and infrastructures at their disposal, and do their best to ensure continuing access to healthcare, to universalize and improve access and quality of treatment, to equalize treatment for historically marginalized populations, to facilitate reconciliation processes to address the abuse of such populations by the medical profession, and to reorganize their profession to remove all capitalist influences and classist organization, while still weighting internal hierarchies to favor training and experience.

G. Trafficking in healthcare, including the threat to withhold healthcare, is an act of aggression.

H. As part of the process of self-definition of health, anarchists will encourage the formation of assemblies that center people’s own needs and experiences, breaking the tradition that establishes healthcare professionals as the protagonists and people as mere receptacles for illness or treatment. People will share and increase knowledge of their own bodies, availing themselves of the tools they need to be proactive in securing the greatest health and happiness possible.

A Berkeley Free Clinic truck offering free HIV tests on a sidewalk in Berkeley, California in 2012.

10. Education

Public education has been used to create patriotic, obedient, and white supremacist civil servants, soldiers, and citizens. For even longer, Catholic education in Europe and in the colonies was used to justify colonialism and state authority. Both public and private education are linked to systematic child abuse. Contrary to classist stereotypes, people with more formal education are often more able to dismiss facts that contradict their prejudices or worldview. Education as it stands is a cornerstone of oppression.

On the contrary, education should be an unending process of growth and self-actualization. Anarchists have always been at the forefront of experimenting with models of liberating education that break with the standard formulas of patriotic, patriarchal, colonial, capitalist education.

A. Knowledge must be free; it belongs to the community.

B. Everyone must be able to access whatever educational opportunities they desire. Anarchists will encourage specific projects that end the oppressions that limit people’s access to education because of their gender, sexuality, race, class, or other divisions. Examples might include intensive trainings in fields like math, sciences, and mechanics for people from groups that have historically been discouraged from entering those fields, or history and literature courses that center the voices and experiences of subjects other than upper-class heterosexual white men. Such projects will also deploy a diversity of learning environments that do not assume a single, normative standard of physical and mental abilities.

C. Anarchists will help ensure that historically marginalized groups can obtain the resources they need to identify and develop the body of knowledge that is important to their specific community and to spread it as they see fit.

D. Children are free to engage in educational settings as they see fit, in dialogue with their communities. Free children who have all their basic needs met are constantly engaged in their own education, independently of whether they do so in a formal setting.

E. Teachers and professors who want to continue working as such may organize basic education, but anarchists will encourage the emergence of new projects based on liberating models of education rather than rote memorization or the completion of preconceived modules, especially collective self-organized self-education projects.

David Graeber speaking at Maagdenhuis in Amsterdam in 2015.

F. Professions that prove to be useful and desirable after the demise of capitalism will organize educational programs to train new members of the profession, expropriating resources from schools and universities or taking over teaching spaces within them, in dialogue with other professions.

G. Scientific organizations may constitute themselves to provide for professional training in universities, and to maintain laboratories and peer-reviewed papers. They will discuss ways to raise the resources necessary to maintain laboratories and needed technologies without capitalizing on the processes of knowledge production. One possible solution is that scientific experimentation will have to respond largely to the needs voiced by communities as a whole.

H. The advanced education needed to become a scientist is a gift from the community to the individual; the knowledge the scientists help produce should be a gift back to the community. Scientists should also honor their responsibility to share tools for education as widely as possible. Scientific knowledge and training should not be concentrated in a few hands. Good science thrives on widespread participation in the process of research and review. For science to live, scientists must cease to treat other human beings as objects in a petri dish and focus on equipping them to participate in that process.

I. Scientists, teachers, and other educators will facilitate reconciliation processes to deal with forms of abuse they may have been complicit in before the revolution, from facilitating police violence against students to working with corporations that caused people harm. Accredited scientists who used their knowledge to aid fossil fuel, armaments, and similar industries should be stripped of their perceived legitimacy in the same way that doctors can be delicensed for malpractice.

J. Associations of scientists will decide if they actually need to use some form of licensing in order to assure the quality of their work. The answer may not be the same for heart surgeons as for botanists. This implies a balance between the needs of scientists to ensure standards of quality, the interests of people to prevent monopolies or gatekeepers that limit access to knowledge and training, as well as people’s need for transparency—ensuring, for example, that those they entrust with their medical care or technological projects that might pollute their environment have not been dangerously negligent in the past. Associations of laypeople will also organize to weigh in on these decisions.

11. Production

Under capitalism, production is one of the chief means of accumulating capital for the wealthy—through alienated work, exploitation, and the destruction of the environment. In anarchy, the only question is how to meet socially defined needs, which include everything from collective survival to the need people feel to grow and enjoy life.

A. Ex-workers will seize their workplaces at the earliest convenience, studying whether the workplace (factory, workshop, office, store, restaurant, etc.) can be modified to produce something socially useful in a healthy way. If not, the workplace will be dismantled and its resources shared out among ex-workers, neighboring communities, and useful workplaces.

B. Ex-workers, excluding managers while welcoming unemployed people with pertinent skills who had been denied access to employment under capitalism, will create some form of collective, cooperative, or communal structure to organize their workplaces, federating with other workplaces across their industry in order to oversee the production of socially useful goods.

C. Delegates within these productive federations must be beholden to a specific collective mandate (promoting positions that arise from their base assembly), they must be immediately recallable if they fail that mandate, and they must continue to exercise their craft. Workplace assemblies will decide if delegates must carry out their normal work on a daily basis or if they may be excused for a limited number of months before returning to normal work, as demanded by the conditions of their work and the needs of the federative labor (for example, delegates may have to travel long distances and might not be able to work during certain periods).

D. Those who wish to be professional representatives, doing no other work but that of bureaucrats and politicians, may form their own federations of representatives in which to go about representing themselves and others to the best of their abilities. For this purpose, it is recommended that they paint their faces white, don berets and striped shirts, travel from community to community, and hold their committee meetings open to the public. People don’t need bureaucrats—but we will always need entertainment!

E. No one may be forced to work. Communities and productive federations will do their utmost to operate according to a logic of abundance rather than a logic of scarcity or monopoly. People who wish to carry out productive or creative labors in a more individual setting or manner will be encouraged to do so, and insofar as it is possible, they will be afforded the space and resources they need, though in moments of absolute scarcity, such as the difficult years of the transition, communities may prefer to favor more effective collective workplaces that are immediately responding to a community need.

F. The gendering of different productive activities is abolished. Anarchists encourage their communities to reflect on how different useful, necessary, and beneficial activities are unequally recognized and rewarded with status, and propose initiatives or new traditions by which to eliminate these vestiges of patriarchy.

G. Ex-workers are encouraged to fully transform their workplaces, deconstructing machinery into its component tools if need be in order to work at a safer pace and create an environment that is healthy in terms of noise, air quality, chemicals, and non-repetitive labors.

H. Workplaces will strike a balance between the creative or productive desires of the members, the needs of surrounding communities, and the needs of society as a whole. This means encouraging artisans in their creative development, making sure not to pollute nearby communities with harmful chemicals or excessive noise, and seeking to create things that others in society need, though embracing the logic of abundance means giving this latter directive the broadest possible interpretation except in cases of acute scarcity that threaten a community’s survival.

I. Destructive energy infrastructure will be phased out at the safest pace possible. Experts in the relevant fields will be encouraged to oversee the shutting down of nuclear power plants according to a schedule that leaves the smallest amount of highly radioactive waste and the plugging of oil wells so they do not contaminate ground water.

J. On a less urgent timeline, communities will explore the decommissioning of highly destructive “green energy” projects that endanger river populations, migratory birds, and other living things. This work will depend on the development of localized, ecological energy production and the drastic reduction of overall energy use, a part of which is the redesigning of buildings to allow for passive solar heating and cooling, a demanding endeavor that cannot be accomplished in a single decade.

K. Communities will decide what technologies and what kinds of scientific experimentation and development they will support. However, in all cases, the communities and scientific organizations involved must be able to absorb or remediate all the negative consequences of that technology. There is no justification for mining someone else’s territory or creating toxic substances that future generations will have to deal with.

12. Distribution, Communication, and Transportation

Localizing power in people and communities has an adjunct in organizing the material means of survival on as local a level as possible, for example through principles like food sovereignty. However, the danger of dependence on an exploitative socioeconomic system decreases dramatically when people can meet most of their survival needs through the resources and activity of a small local network of communities. For the remainder of those needs, as well as all the things that make life more enjoyable, it may be necessary to organize distribution across multiple regions of a continent and beyond. Additionally, travel is extremely important in an anarchist society to inculcate a global consciousness, encourage reciprocity and solidarity, prevent the emergence of borders, and collectivize knowledge as much as possible.

A. All state-backed currencies are abolished. All monetary debts are canceled.

B. Exchange of goods between communities shall be done in as equitable a manner as possible. Communities in close contact may prefer a free exchange or gift economy. Communities without the basis of trust that makes a gift economy easier to practice may decide to use quid pro quo trade, but trading up for profit (serial trading to capture a growth of value) or charging interest on the lending of goods can be considered attempts at coercion and exploitation.

C. Communities should pursue food sovereignty, meeting the majority of their survival needs from their local land base, but beyond that, infrastructures should be maintained to encourage exchange and travel.

D. Transport workers, together with affected communities, will collaborate to transform existing transportation infrastructure to be as ecologically sustainable as possible, while other infrastructures (e.g., airports and highways) are to be dismantled.

E. Already extracted fossil fuel reserves and existing infrastructures will be rationed, giving priority to the transition in agricultural production, global reparations of resources, and maintaining connectivity in rural areas with no transportation alternatives.

F. Communities, transportation workers, and those involved in fighting against patriarchal violence at the time of the revolution will work together to make sure that people can travel freely and safely regardless of their gender. Communities that enable or permit violence against women or gender non-conforming people traveling through their territory are considered to be in aggression against the rest of the world.

G. Communities will do their best to maintain existing communications infrastructure so that they can remain in touch to communicate globally and share the experiences of their respective revolutionary processes. In the long term, they will explore ways to maintain those infrastructures they find useful with recycled or non-harmful materials. They will also study whether addictive and depressive behaviors related to social networking technologies are intrinsic to those technologies or a maladaptive response to the alienations of capitalism.

13. Conflict Resolution and Transformative Justice

Prisons and police have existed for far too long, destroying people and communities. There are ways to deal with the inevitable conflicts of social existence that see people as capable of growth, redemption, and healing, and that are organized to meet the needs of the community rather than to protect a system of oppression and inequality. The revolution is a process of destroying state power; it is also a process of the rebirth of real communities. Capitalism forced us to be dependent on its mechanisms for our survival, but once it is abolished, our survival once again becomes something we create collectively.

A. Communities are reconstituted through the assemblies and other spaces through which they organize their territory and the survival of their members. A part of this means being accountable to the community on which our survival depends, and taking part in the healthy resolution of conflicts, the healing of harm, and the restoring of reciprocal relations.

B. Communities will do their best to enable fluid ways of being and relating that break with the closed, patriarchal, and micro-oppressive structures that have been traditional in many places. However, no leeway need be given to the dominant concept of fluidity of late capitalism in which people move through space without ever acknowledging their relations, their impact on others, or the simple fact that their survival is not their personal property.

C. People involved in mediation, conflict resolution, and transformative justice will share resources and encourage communities to deal with conflict and harm in a restorative way that promotes healing and reconciliation. We will also make sure that the burden of this work does not fall disproportionately along gender lines.

D. Communities will define norms and boundaries around harmful behaviors, but anarchists will encourage them to develop practices that center dialogue and processes of healing and reconciliation, rather than the codification of prohibited behaviors and punishment.

E. Communities that already have traditions of mediation and reconciliatory processes are encouraged to share their experience as they see fit.

F. All prisons will be dismantled, with communities taking in ex-prisoners who had been convicted of harming other people and committing to working with them on exploring the circumstances around the harm.

G. Committees of people experienced in transformative justice will work with ex-prisoners who are not taken in and vouched for by any community, together with the communities harmed by them, to try to find a solution.

H. Given that total opposition to prisons is not a widespread position, anarchists will organize debates on other possible responses to the worst scenarios of harm—the small minority of cases in which people repeatedly kill, abuse, or victimize others. One possible proposal is to always favor reconciliation with all resources available, but to never delegitimize autonomous acts of self-defense or revenge, especially in cases in which reconciliation is not a realistic outcome.

I. Special attention will be given to all acts of gender and sexual violence, especially those that had been normalized under the patriarchal, punitive regime that is to be abolished. People active in opposing such violence will suggest appropriate structures and practices for communities to adopt.

14. Safety

The state thrives on the lie that security and freedom constitute a dichotomy, two things that exist in inverse proportion and that we must sacrifice each in equal measure to strike a balance between them. Because security is connected with survival, the state can convince us that we would not be able to enjoy what little freedom we have if we did not prioritize security and accept its protection.

In truth, our survival, our safety, and our freedom all depend on how well we can take care of one another, not how high we build walls around ourselves. As long as states exist, even only as a projection in the minds of the power-hungry, we will need to defend ourselves from those who would subjugate and exploit us; sometimes, we will also need to defend ourselves from those who cause harm by not recognizing others’ boundaries, not empathizing with others, or not realizing the consequences of their own actions. How we organize our defense can be dangerous to our freedom. It is also a challenge to conceive of dangers and conflicts in a way that transforms us and others, rather than fixing our antagonists as permanent enemies we need to destroy.

A. All police forces are abolished, and their members should participate in reconciliation processes to address the harm they have caused. Those who refuse may be viewed as statist paramilitaries.

B. Communities may create some kind of volunteer service to protect against various forms of aggression or interpersonal harm. However, to prevent anything like a police force from emerging, whatever form this service takes, it must focus on de-escalation and reconciliation rather than punishment; it should focus on calling out the rest of the community to deal with the conflict or instance of harm rather than monopolizing the response; and the participants must not have special privileges in terms of the right to use force or access to weapons that the rest of the community does not have.

C. Communities are encouraged to create some kind of protective group, tradition, or structure specifically designed to respond to and deal with gender violence in all its forms. They may wish this force to be composed of people other than cis men.

D. Because the state will not be abolished everywhere at once, and because many communities with hierarchical values may continue to exist and may try to subordinate neighboring communities to their will, there may be a need to create anarchist militias or other fighting units—both to defend a free territory and to engage in revolutionary warfare against a statist, imperialist territory. To deserve the terms “free militia” and “revolutionary warfare,” these must be dedicated to several key principles that distinguish them from statist armies. Simply tacking on a red flag is not enough. The fighters must be volunteers; they must be able to choose their own leaders and leadership structures. There must be no officers with aristocratic privileges. The entirety of the force must decide together on acceptable measures of discipline. Assemblies that transcend the free militias—for example, federations of the communities from which the fighters come—will decide the broad strategic objectives and guidelines for humanitarian conduct. In other words the militias must not be fully autonomous: they exist to defend the needs of broader communities, rather than dominating those communities or promoting their own interests on anything but a tactical level.

E. Free militias will avoid the logic of territorial, aggressive warfare in which the objective is to conquer a space defined as enemy territory. The purpose should either be defensive warfare, defending the communities and dissuading others from attacking, or revolutionary warfare, supporting people in an oppressive society who are fighting for their own freedom. In the latter case, the initiative must come from those oppressed people and must not be organized primarily by the militias of a neighboring territory.

F. Free communities do not try to eliminate or annihilate enemies. They defend their freedom and dignity, and support others who are doing so, and then they try to make friends or at the very least make peace.

G. Safety, in an anarchist framework, is not the protection of the weak by the strong, it is the empowerment and cultivated capacity for self-defense of all, with priority given to those whose gender socialization, racialization, or physical and psychological difference has specifically disempowered them under current oppressive conditions.

H. Peace, in an anarchist framework, is not simply the absence of armed conflict, especially when such absence indicates acquiescence to oppression. Peace is an outgrowth of happiness, freedom, and self-actualization, which we hope this program will foster more than capitalism ever has, and a proactive effort. Anarchists will encourage communities to engage and exchange not just with their immediate neighbors, but transcontinentally, sharing and creating cultural bonds, affinities, and friendships on a global scale so as to make the wars of conquest and annihilation that states have been practicing for millennia inconceivable.

15. Community Organization and Coordination

In opposition to involuntary citizenship and dictatorial or representative decision-making that imposes homogenizing laws on all of society, anarchism posits the principles of voluntary association and self-organization, meaning people are free to form themselves into groups of their choosing, to organize those groups as they see fit, and to order their lives on a daily basis, with everyone’s participation.

A. Every community is autonomous and free to organize its own affairs. Every community should develop its own methods and structures of organization and subsistence.

B. Anarchists encourage models that prioritize well-being and prevent the reemergence of statist organization, including the gift economy within communities, and overlapping, redundant forms of organization that prevent the centralization of power, such as combinations of federated territorial assemblies, workplace assemblies, infrastructural organizations, and professional and educational organizations. The goal is to tie people together in a multiplicity of organizational spaces. This way, many different organizational models and cultures can be practiced, since none are neutral or equally accessible to everyone; conflict is mediated by multiplying relationships through numerous organizational and territorial bonds; and the emergence of a political class that is skilled in manipulating assemblies and that thrives in the alienated space of politics is discouraged. If there is no central space where all decisions and authority are legitimated, no matter how participatory that space pretends to be, there can be no political class. This is the difference between democracy and anarchy—not to mention the fact that anarchism has historically opposed slavery, capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, and the like, whereas democracy has often relied upon them.

C. In order to prevent the return of authoritarian dynamics in the guise of democracy, anarchists would do well to facilitate community processes exploring how formal and informal mechanisms of decision-making distribute gendered power and how vital informal, non-legitimized spaces are to the organization of daily life—but also identifying which informal spaces enable the centralization of power and studying how different ways of organizing, opening, and diffusing formal spaces can serve to prevent rather than facilitate the centralization of power.

D. As a general rule, the only time it is acceptable to intervene in the affairs of a neighboring community is in matters of self-defense, when they do not respect their neighbors’ need for freedom and a dignified survival.

E. When a community does not respect its members’ need for food, water, shelter, healthcare, and bodily integrity, it is good for neighboring communities to offer those members support and refuge. The neighboring communities may support efforts by oppressed or exploited members of the first community to end their oppression, but liberation must always be the task of those who are most directly affected by oppression. Communities should try to avoid intervening directly or forcefully in the affairs of their neighbors.

F. Communities should strive to accept the inevitable differences they have with their neighbors, aiming to foster relations of dialogue and peace. In the case of communities that do not respect the dignity and survival of others, it may be preferable to seek mediation or cut off connections rather than escalating to physical conflict.

G. Many communities will find the need or the desire to join in larger associations for matters of culture, production, and distribution and in order to share common resources. It is preferable to form free federations or associations that maintain power at the local level, while also creating multiple, cross-cutting organizational ties so that every person in every community is a member of multiple groups—for example, the coordinating body to protect a shared watershed, a cultural-linguistic grouping, a scientific association and university system, a producers’ and consumers’ union for sharing resources, and a territorial confederation. In this way, each community has a richer web of relationships, and in the case of conflicts, disputes do not fracture into two belligerent sides, but everyone is tied together by other relationships so there is an abundance of mediators and a general interest in preserving the peace.

16. The Planet

Capitalism has brought the planet to the brink of collapse. It is not enough to destroy capitalism. We must also uproot the capitalist, Western way of relating with the land in favor of healthy, reciprocal, ecocentric relations, and we must do everything possible to heal the planet and all the living communities that share it.

A. It is our responsibility to help the planet heal and help ensure the survival and continuity of all living communities.

B. Communities will tend to their territories as best they can to remediate the destruction and pollution caused by capitalism, to identify and protect species and ecosystems that are in danger, to promote the rewilding of spaces, and to conceive of themselves as part of the ecosystem.

C. Communities and scientific associations will pool resources and share information in order to track problems of global concern, such as greenhouse gases, vulnerable species, dead zones and plastic pollution in the oceans, radiation, and other forms of long-term pollution. They will set targets and make recommendations to specific communities and territorial confederations with the goal of ameliorating these problems as thoroughly and fairly as possible.

[politicaltheatre]

Empathy, pt.3

Let’s start with this: Jamal Kashshoggi was a man.

Do you remember him? He was a man, a human being, and like any of us he had hopes and dreams and memories.

He was also a journalist. After years of supporting the Saudi royal family and their authoritarian regime, he was murdered in 2018 for writing and speaking out against their abuses and, eventually, their war in Yemen. That was the version of him who fled Saudi Arabia, and the one who was marked for death by the Saudi crown prince he had once called a friend.

Last fall, the Saudi regime commuted the death sentences of the men it offered up as his murderers. Three months ago, an investigation confirmed that it was the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who had ordered his death.

We’re forgetting him. Even now, reading this, we are already forgetting. We can’t help it. At least, we tell ourselves we can’t.

In many ways, Kashshoggi was a lot like Alexei Novalny. Novalny hasn’t left the news quite yet. Like Kashshoggi, he supported the corrupt, authoritarian regime in his country, Russia, before turning against it. The attempt on his life, by poison, failed. Barely. He’s still alive, locked up in a Russian prison, a cautionary tale for those daring to oppose Vladimir Putin.

How long before we’ve forgotten him, too?

It’s a lot to ask of ourselves, remembering everyone around us. Sure, in some abstract way most of us try, “Good will towards men,” and all that, but we have the luxury of looking away and of not having to commit ourselves to thinking of others the way those two men did.

For each of them, it was an inescapable empathy for the suffering of they saw around them that compelled them to risk their lives to draw attention to it. They did so knowing the cost.

That cost - personal loss, imprisonment, death - is enough to keep most of us looking away. So much of what we do is to enable us to look away, to keep unpleasant reality at a distance. When others are already physically far away, it only makes it that much harder for us to do the right thing.

Looking out past our borders, the world today is filled with men, women, and children suffering, more than a few at the hands of authoritarian regimes, and of them far too many paying that cost for standing up against abuse.

The most present case this past week, because videos on social media have made it impossible to ignore in ways that it has been, has been that of the Palestinians.

The facts of this latest series of abuses against them should not be in doubt. During the last days of Ramadan, Israelis began forcing Palestinians out of their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah district in East Jerusalem. This was followed in quick succession by Israeli troops occupying the Al-Aqsa mosque following a confrontation between Palestinians at the mosque for Friday prayers and Israelis celebrating the capture of the mosque in 1967.

This was all a deliberate provocation, beyond the aggressive offense of what the Israelis were doing. The timing of it, during the Muslim holy month while right wing Benjamin Netanyahu struggles to cling to power, was intended to add insult to injury.

It worked. Clearly.

Hamas, ever eager for an excuse to be violent and to be seen to be violent, gave an ultimatum that would make Netanyahu’s regime look weak if accepted, Netanyahu gratefully rejected it, and Hamas began firing rockets, knowing that Israel would escalate and retaliate with a kind of brutality that can only be described as criminal.

The unpleasant reality is that both political powers rely on perpetuating the conflict between them, doing so at the expense of the people they claim to want to serve and protect. And those people pay the cost of it.

Note, please, how I have avoided referring to those instigating these atrocities as Muslims or Jews. That they use their religions and their histories as justification for violence and abuse should not be taken as representative of either religion. If anything, it should be taken as a kind of cruel irony, or perhaps an insight into how the abused, as individuals or groups, can become abusers themselves.

Zionism is not Judaism. It never was and never will be. It grew out of two things: the technology-driven late 19th century belief by Europeans, and their North American “cousins”, in their right to colonial domination of non-Europeans; and the centuries-old, routine and systematic attacks on Jews - pogroms - especially in Central and Eastern Europe that led millions of Jews to flee for their lives, many of them to the United States.

The establishment of Israel in 1948 followed the same pattern: that same, late 19th century belief in the right to claim or assign ownership of others’ land - no matter that it had once belonged to your ancestors; and the routine and systematic attempted genocide of all Jews in Europe - the Holocaust - by Europeans who chose to believe Jews not to be Europeans but some other, lesser race from West Asia.

That, of course, has been the assigned role for Jews the world over: they are accepted as insiders when times are good and scapegoated as outsiders when times are bad. To be Jewish - I am - is to understand that this never quite goes away. There’s always somebody having a bad day, always a big lie ready for justification.

Technically, it is true that Jews are Asian, in the way that Palestinians are also Asian, and that Egyptians are, too, but also African because different people have had different maps which they used for different purposes at different times.

Also true is that these things are only true due to the arbitrary drawing of continental lines on maps made by Europeans, from the ancient Greeks to those carving up the “New World” in the century after Columbus to the 1885 conference in Berlin carving up Africa for colonial exploitation.

This is not, strictly speaking, a European thing. Every culture has a tendency to see themselves as the center of the world. Just ask those living in China, or as they call it, Zhongguo, the “Middle Kingdom”.

The difference here is that modern day Israel was carved out of Palestine, a colonial “protectorate” which was itself carved out of the Ottoman Empire and awarded to the British following World War I. As a spoil of war, formerly-Ottoman Iraq, with its vast oil reserves, had greater value to the British. Palestine had ports on the Mediterranean - “the center of the world” - but was otherwise an afterthought.

Not, however, to the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. We must remember that the rest of the world didn’t want them. Jews attempting to flee the atrocity they and everyone else couldn’t help but see coming were turned away by everyone else, including the United States.

This in no way justifies what was done in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s, it’s just to place it in context. By turning Jews away, by attempting to forget them and their suffering, the world gave weight and power to right wing groups within the refugees.

Starting in the 1930s, those groups began to engage in terrorism against Arabs to force their position into Palestine and against the British to force them out. Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) and later the Stern Gang carried out assassinations and killed hundreds of Arabs and British with bombs.

After what the Nazis did to the Jews in Europe, memorialized in newsreels for all the world to see, who would take the Arabs’ side? Who could? The British were in no position to hold onto their colonial possessions anywhere, so they gave up and pulled out and in 1948 the state of Israel was born. Palestinian Arabs were forced from their homes and stripped of rights they had held under the Ottomans and even the British.

Again, this was not Judaism. As the name “Irgun” suggests, those terrorists were a right wing, nationalist militia doing what right wing, nationalist militias have done before and since, using an ethnic or religious identity to justify committing atrocities to take land and property.

After standing by and allowing the Nazis to do what they did, the world vowed never to forget; part of the price they were willing to pay - that they were willing to allow the Palestinian Arabs to pay - was to forget what Irgun and the Stern Gang had done, and to turn a blind eye to anything the Israelis did going forward.

There was a racist element to it, to be sure. This is part of the pattern of colonial withdrawal, negotiating a partition of land and possessions among the colonized groups, pitting them against each other, and then letting them fend for themselves. Nothing like creating a power vacuum to draw out the worst of us.

The British did the same thing in South Asia in 1947, pitting Muslim and Hindu groups against each other, erupting in spasms of violence before settling into a Cold War, complete with nuclear weapons. Even in their most secular eras, religious nationalism has defined the politics and leadership of each nation.

The result of this, naturally, has been an increasingly corrupt leadership exploiting religious hatred and mistrust to gain more power and wealth for themselves. It should be noted, yet again, that the political entities of Pakistan and India, though led by religious nationalists, do not represent Islam or Hinduism.

Their actions and failures do not represent those religions in any way. They are the actions and failures of men and women seeking power, seeking to acquire it and seeking to hold onto it. They are no different than the Netanyahu regime or Hamas, or our own right wing leaders in the United States.

For all of them, it is in their interest to cling to memory of conflict as a means of manipulation; in Israel and Palestine, nationalist leaders preach as if 1948 or 1967 are now; in India and Pakistan, it’s still 1947; and for America’s white nationalists, it’s either 1865 or 1965, take your pick. For the Serbs slaughtering thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica twenty-six years ago, it was 1389, the year the Ottomans conquered the Balkans.

The wars, cold or hot, can never end because time is never allowed to change. This, again, is a function of proximity. By freezing themselves in the increasingly distant past, the leaders and those choosing to follow them do not have to accept the changes facing them in the present. Their fantasy is to return to that idyllic, earlier time, when they possessed everything and did not have to be accountable to anyone.

And they will all fail for the same reason: in the present or near future, we will have reached a point at which we can no longer allow ourselves to ignore those suffering and in doing so forget them.

That is what we have done to the Palestinians. What has been done and what is being done now is in no small part because we forget them, routinely and systematically and purposefully.

The videos sent from Gaza of children being pulled from rubble should help us remember. They should. Ideally, they will have the same effect as those of last year’s Black Live Matter protests, but the people of Gaza remain far away. For many of us, it will be enough that the missiles and rockets have stopped.

Videos sent from India’s emergency rooms and crematoria should help us remember, but they, too, remain far away. Already, we’re starting to put India’s crisis behind us.

Will we remember either of them a month from now? Two? Or will they fade into the background, as the imprisoned Hong Kong democracy protesters have, or those dying of Covid-19 in Brazil, or those shot down in the streets fighting police brutality in Columbia, or those caught between warring factions in Ethiopia’s Tigray region? Or, for that matter, those half a century ago in Argentina who were simply “disappeared”?

What about the coup in Myanmar? Remember that? How about the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya people, supported by the now-deposed and jailed regime of fallen-hero Aung San Suu Kyi? What was done to them was no different than what was done to the Armenians in what is now eastern Turkey by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. That genocide was recently recognized by President Biden, an act of official, international recognition that took over a century and which itself is already being forgotten. The Rohingya may have to wait as long to be remembered themselves, or longer.

The point of all this isn’t that we forget, try as we might, but that despite it we find ways to remember. That Biden recognized the Armenians came because they did not forget and did not allow that crime to be forgotten. 

If this sounds like what nationalists all claim to do themselves - always demanding that everyone remember this date or that insult - remember that actual justice never seems to be their goal.

Justice requires memory, full memory. For us to remember anything fully, we must take the good with the bad. We must recognize the good and bad in each of us and in each group and in each series of actions. We must understand that for the worst act done by anyone in the name of any group or religion, there remain those within those groups and religions who stand against it.

So, let’s end with this: George Floyd 

George Floyd was a man, a human being, and like any of us he had hopes and dreams and memories. He died one year ago today in no small part because we forgot him. 

We remember now, today especially, because of what was done to him on this date, but we should recognize the role that forgetting him and people like him played in the events that led to his murder. We as a society have looked away from the suffering of minorities in this country, and from the violence done to certain groups within our society.

The easiest thing to say, certainly as we watched that video and the countless videos of police brutalizing non-violent protesters all last summer, was that “all cops are bad”. They aren’t. Hard as it may be to hear, they aren’t.

They are, however, led by men and women who push an adversarial culture, who encourage violence and racism, who are corrupt, and who thrive on the failure of reform. And most of them, far, far too many, stand by in silence as men and women are murdered in that culture’s name. In that silence, they have failed us all.

If we want to change that culture, we need those who would stand for justice to stand up and speak. They are there, just as they are in Israel and Palestine, and in Pakistan and India and elsewhere: intimidated, ostracized, and struggling to be heard.

Of course, May 25th, 2020 wasn’t just any other day in America. It was Memorial Day. That is a cruel irony. Another is how little we do to honor that day. It was created to honor those who died for this country, to remember not only them but what they did and what they supposedly did it for. Instead, we grill meats and drink beer and forget our troubles for just one day.

Few deaths may have the lasting impact on this country that George Floyd’s has had and will have, and he died in no small part because he, too, had been forgotten. This coming Memorial Day, let us take a moment to remember him and all of the others everywhere in this world who have died and deserve to be remembered.

- Daniel Ward

[cincinnatusvirtue]

Battle of the Boyne (1690):Cementing the divisions that make modern Ireland.

Ireland’s history with its British neighbors is ancient and storied.  Their are stories dating back to the waning days of Roman Britain of Irish raiders capturing unsuspecting slaves to be traded on the mysterious island to the west known as Hibernia.  According to written records, Ireland’s future patron saint, St. Patrick was one such Romano-Briton who served as a slave and later returned to Ireland as a missionary helping to convert the pagan Celtic Irish en masse to Christianity bringing them in “closer” contact with their fellow Romano-British Celts, known historically at the Britons, now known as the Welsh.  In time, Irish missionaries traveled to the north of Britain, known as Scotland and helped spread Christianity there.  in the ensuing collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the so called Dark Ages fell upon Europe and Germanic Anglo-Saxon raiders invaded and settled the south of Britain spread north and west pushing the Celtic Britons back further and established their own petty kingdoms such as Wessex, East Anglia among others.  Eventually these would coalesce into the Kingdom of England.  The Celts of Dark Age Britain were now confined to the west in the petty kingdoms that formed modern Wales, the county of southwest England known as Cornwall, to become the Cornish and the north of modern England known as Cumbria, others left for the western most peninsula of France, becoming Brittany.  Scotland was left to its own devices more or less during this time, with the Picts of Scotland fusing with Irish Gaels to form the Scottish branch of Gaelic speakers.

Ireland and Britain were both subject to Viking influence when the Scandinavian raiders came out of the north and established first many raids and then their own petty kingdoms, battling, the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English all throughout this time as well as trading with them off and on.  It really was not after William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy and descendant of Viking raiders who settled in France, invaded and conquered Anglo-Saxon England in 1066 that the course of events between Britain and Ireland would be inextricably linked thereafter.  By the 12th century, William’s descendants or Anglo-Normans were called to Ireland initially as mercenaries to assist the deposed Irish King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough during a civil war amongst the local Irish petty kingdoms.  By 1170-1171, the Anglo-Norman noble Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, known to history as Strongbow lead an invasion and laid the ground work for the first continual English presence in Ireland.  The Anglo-Norman invasion, overstepped its initial mandate and began taking Irish land for its self.  This established the Lordship of Ireland, of which Henry II of England became the first Lord of Ireland.  Over the centuries, Ireland was more or less ruled in personal union with the kings of England as the Norman dynasty became less Norman French and was subsumed into the Anglo-Saxon majority of England, so to did the Anglo-Normans who settled Ireland, becoming Hiberno-Normans bringing now famous family names to Ireland such using the Norman prefix “Fitz” such as Fitzgerald.  That’s right, any “Fitz” surname in Ireland is not native Irish but actually Norman French by way of England including the Fitzgerald family.  In time they identified as Irish and absorbed many of the Irish Gaels culture as part of their own.  Becoming as some historians have said “more Irish than the Irish themselves.”

Throughout this, the local Irish majority remained predominantly Gaelic speaking with a Norman French and later English speaking minority at the political top, although some local Irish Gaels did maintain positions of wealth and power.  Things changed drastically in the 16th century as the Middle Ages had given away to the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation of the 1500′s.  Henry VIII of England, of the Tudor dynasty had for personal and political reasons joined the Protestant cause that was dividing Europe along fervent religious grounds, he founded the English brand of Protestantism known as Anglicanism or the Anglican Church of which the English monarch is the supreme leader to this day and the Church of England is official state religion of Britain.  This shift in religion was resisted in Britain and in Ireland and while England and Wales gradually gave way to majority Protestantism, Ireland remained firmly Catholic in part as a point of contention in opposition to English rule.  Forever after, Catholicism would become linked with the majority of native or Gaelic Irish and some of the Hiberno-English who now identified as solely “Irish” having intermarried and culturally taken on Gaelic culture.  This lead to a prolonged period of tension, rebellion throughout the 16th century, known as the Tudor reconquest of Ireland.  Gaelic Irish and Hiberno-English noble families such as the Fitzgeralds of Desmond coalesced into an Irish nationality and resisted English Protestant rule.  They were backed by England’s major Catholic rival of the time, Spain.  Henry VIII’s daughter and eventual successor Elizabeth I of England made Ireland of theater of war against not just rebels but a defense against Spanish aggression, since Ireland could be a back door or launching pad into reasserting Catholicism in Protestant Britain.  The Irish people were caught in the political machinations of Spain and England, in time with the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the loss of Spanish invention altogether and the crushing of the rebels Ireland’s Catholic polity was about to face a sea change that would from the 17th century onward would affect Ireland’s history.

Under Elizabeth I and carrying onto her Stuart successors from Scotland, namely James VI/I, the Plantations of Ireland were implemented.  English, Welsh and Scottish Protestant settlers were sent to colonize Ireland by the thousands, the hope was ultimately to cultivate a new class of British political elite, one that would dispossess the native Gaelic Irish Catholics of all their land and essentially their basic rights, even the practice of Roman Catholicism was outlawed though the practice of this was ban was not practicably enforced on a mass private level.  However, Catholics were stripped of political power, even old Anglo-Norman families like the Fitzgerald who were now Irish, were dethroned of their political power.  This persisted in the 17th century and no place was the source of tension and the English government’s need for the New English as the Protestant settlers were called by some to “tame” the Irish than in the north of Ireland, collectively called Ulster or the Plantation of Ulster.

However, the English flavor of Dublin and the Leinster region was ultimately not to be found in Ulster.  Ulster’s Protestant community was more diverse, taking in small amounts of Gaelic Irish Protestant converts, German Lutheran, Calvinist and French Huguenot immigrants and even greater amounts of English settlers from the north of England and finally the majority of Ulster Protestants were Scots from the Scottish Lowlands with a few Highlanders sprinkled in the mix.  The Scots own brand of Protestantism which became the Church of Scotland was a Calvinist reformed branch known as Presbyterianism.  Ulster’s mix of Scots, English, German, French and native Irish Protestants coalesced into the community known today as Ulster Scots or for those that later emigrated to America, the Scots-Irish or Scotch-Irish which was also bound to have a large impact on the cultural and political character and overall history of the United States.

As the 17th century wore on, the Stuart kings of England ruled England, Ireland and Scotland under one person albeit as three separate kingdoms in name.  In time Charles I of England found himself by mid-century at odds with the Puritan branch of the Anglican Church and the members of his Parliament who felt in part Charles was too cozy with Catholic Spain and did little support Protestant allies elsewhere in Europe.  Additionally at home, Charles though officially Anglican was appeared to be shaping the church in a direction starting to resemble the ornamentation and trappings of the Catholic Church which angered the Puritans.  Ultimately, this conflict with Parliament over the rights of the king and those of his subjects lead to the English Civil War of the 1640′s which expanded into the War of the Three Kingdoms with Royalist and Parliamentarian supporters in England, Scotland and Ireland.  The Parliamentarians won control over all of these lands. Charles I was tried and beheaded, marking the end of absolutist monarchy in Britain.  A new short lived Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, known as the Protectorate formed a brief Republic in Britain’s history under the rule of MP and Puritan turned general and military dictator, Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector.  Cromwell conquered rebellious parts of Ireland which sought to either assert independence from English rule or supported the royalist cause due to the Stuarts’ supposed sympathies to Catholicism.  Cromwell’s army committed atrocities that are regarded by many in Ireland today as form of genocide.  This only furthered tensions between Protestants and Catholics.  Cromwell died shortly after less than a decade of personal rule and his son briefly ruled as his heir but was deposed in favor of a restoration of the monarchy with Charles II, son of the executed Charles I.

In the background of greater European politics the dividing issue of much of Europe was whether Protestantism or Catholicism would reign supreme in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation movements.  Notably, this played out in the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648 which involved all the great powers of Europe at various times, killed millions and ultimately saw the survival of Protestant and Catholic dynasties throughout Europe, the war was not exclusively religious though, it started out as a religious war but extended to a personal and political battle for independence and shaping the balance of power in Europe.  Western Europe’s biggest rivalry was not actually England and Spain though it had been largely fought between those two powers, it was actually whatever power was at odds with the Kingdom of France.  France and England had been rivals since the Middle Ages but France also had issues with their fellow Catholic powers in Spain at times as well as the German Holy Roman Empire, run by the Austrian Hapsburgs which in fact ruled Spain and Austria simultaneously though separately and in time Spain branched off from the Holy Roman Empire despite their common ruling dynasty.  By the mid 17th century, France was ruled by the man who reintroduced absolutist rule and centralized governance around the monarch, Louis XIV, the Sun King.  Louis’s ambition was to make France the dominant political power in Europe which he would do so through diplomacy and war.  One of his chief rivals, was William Prince of Orange and Stadtholder of the United Seven Provinces also known as the Dutch Republic.  The Protestant Dutch Republic had only just gained its’ independence at the end of Thirty Years War from Spain which itself was an 80 year conflict, called fittingly the Eighty Years War.  William was a maternal grandson of Charles I of England and nephew of the reigning Charles II.  William went on to marry his first cousin, Mary Stuart and daughter of Charles I’s other son James, younger brother of Charles II.

James, like his elder brother Charles had sought refuge in Catholic France under Louis XIV’s rule during the Commonwealth period of England.  During this time, James converted to Catholicism with his first wife Anne of Hyde and while his brother remained nominally Anglican.  James’s daughters Mary and Anne however were to be raised as Protestants by order of his brother Charles II during the Stuart restoration.  In 1677, James allowed his daughter Mary to marry his nephew, William, Prince of Orange, the son of his own sister Mary.  James’s first wife Anne died and he remarried an Italian princess, Mary of Modena.  Mary was a devout Catholic herself and in 1685, James succeeded Charles II as King of England, Scotland and Ireland.  His succession came about because Charles had no legitimate heir of his own, though several illegitimate children.  Charles II had also converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.  For Louis XIV, the prospect of a relative and Catholic on the throne of England, his greatest potential rival was promising, it meant he could help coordinate peace between the two rival nations and direct their mutual resources against the Protestant nuisance of the Dutch Republic ruled nominally by the new King of England’s nephew and son-in law.  

Previously, France and England were allied under Charles II during the Franco-Dutch War in the 1670′s but the alliance was domestically unpopular in England especially and only brief.  That war grew out of French ambitions in the Spanish Netherlands, modern day Belgium which the Dutch also sought.  The war got some French gains but Dutch independence was overall preserved and William of Orange, set about leading an anti-French coalition that would persevere for the remainder of the 17th century and into the 18th century.  The ultimate goal was to counter France’s power and influence and both William and Louis ultimately saw England and its subordinate kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland as potential allies or rivals.

James II/VII was increasingly at odds within his own kingdom like his father Charles I and his older brother Charles II before him.  His own Catholicism irritated his Protestant majority in England, Wales and Scotland, especially among those in the nobility and Parliament.  Also his newer bride Mary of Modena was quite young and of childbearing age and the prospect of a Catholic legitimate heir frightened the Protestants of the three Kingdoms.  Catholics in Ireland rejoiced however as James seemed to be the promise to at last restore some of their rights, namely tolerance for their religion and rights to land ownership.  Parliaments in Scotland and England refused to pass tolerance acts so James simply suspended them and ruled by decree instead, granting Catholics a measure of their rights.  Though overall, the changes were minor.  The unease of the Protestants, particularly in Ireland where 75% of the overall population was Catholic save for the Ulster province which was 50% Protestant. 

Tensions were high within the three kingdoms when in 1688 seven Anglican bishops were tried for sedition and libel for failing to comply with the king’s order pushed over the last base of conservative support, James had in England.  At the invitation of seven English nobles, the Immortal Seven as history would call them, asked for William of Orange to lead an invasion of England to depose his uncle/father in law and allow him and his wife to Mary to rule instead as co-sovereigns over England.  This would put England, Scotland and Ireland in personal union with the Protestant Dutch Republic.  Using 14,000-15,000 men of the Dutch army, including elite Scottish, Swedish, German, Swiss, French and English mercenaries made up the bulk of his army, supporting Dutch regulars.  William landed in southern England in September 1688.  The English army and navy largely mutinied due to James insistence on Catholic mass in military institutions.  James left without an army fled to France, having been successfully deposed in what became the Glorious Revolution.

1689, saw William and Mary named co-rulers of England, Scotland and Ireland.  Becoming William III/II of England, Scotland and Ireland.  However, James abandonment of the throne while satisfying to most Protestants was not accepted by many Catholics of the realm, most especially in Ireland.  1689 also saw the Bill of Rights issued which was to influence the later American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights a century later.  In England it was largely favorable to the Protestant cause and helped establish rules of succession at the expense of Catholics.   William knew his rule wasn’t solid throughout the realm and with France now engaging in war and pushing for James’s restoration to the throne, the British Isles would become an inevitable theater in the upcoming Nine Years War (1688-1697) also known as the War of the Grand Alliance or War of the League of Augsburg pitting the anti-French Coalition lead by the Dutch Republic now in personal union with Protestant England and Scotland and supported by Catholic powers like the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Savoy and Portugal with some Swedish assistance too against France and Catholic supporters of James’s restoration Britain, collectively these supporters were called Jacobites after the Latin name for James (Jacobus).  In Britain Jacobite support existed in smaller degrees in England and Scotland,, the largest base of support was among the Gaelic Irish population who saw James as the best realization of their collective political hopes.

The situation on the ground Ireland had deteriorated in the wake of James deposition and flight to France.  Catholic and Protestant tension in Ireland had reached highs.  James with French support landed in Ireland in March 1689 with French regulars and English, Scottish and Irish volunteers backing him up.  James landing and consolidation of support among the Catholic populace terrified the Protestants of Ireland and alerted William that he needed to counter James in Ireland before he consolidated his rule there and then launched an invasion of England proper and probably with French support.  Protestants fled some cities and the countryside to so called Protestant strongholds un Ulster.  Namely the towns of Derry/Londonderry and Enniskillen.  They soon found themselves under prolonged sieges by Jacobite forces, the Protestants were loyal to their religion and to the new Protestant rulers William and Mary.  The Protestants regardless of their denomination Scottish Presbyterian or Anglo-Irish Anglican were unified in opposition to the Jacobites.  There was legitimate fear that Protestants would be massacred as had happened decades prior when Catholic Irish mobbed and massacred pockets of Protestants.  In Derry, the walls of the city held out against the siege but at great cost due to starvation and sickness among the Protestant populace.  Finally, a relief force of Williamite (Protestant supporters of William) ended the siege in later summer of 1689.  William for his part though was still consolidating support within England and taking the time to both finance and organize the logistics to undertake an Irish expedition to defeat James and the Jacobite forces. Ultimately, Derry and Enniskillen had proven that there was indeed support for the Williamite cause in Ireland.  The Derry call of “No Surrender” became a rallying cry to the Protestant cause.  Meanwhile skirmishes persisted and discussions and negotiations among many parties was underway, some clamored for James restoration and some Irish Catholics wanted outright independence. 

It was not until 1690 that William and his forces were underway to Ireland.  William’s goal was to confront James and fight if necessary, albeit not necessarily kill him since he was his uncle and father in law.  Nevertheless, William’s forces landed in Belfast in June carrying over 30,000 troops.  the Jacobites meanwhile were reinforced by French regulars and by July the Jacobite force reached nearly 24,000 strong at its peak.  The Jacobite composition was mostly drawn from the local Gaelic Irish populace, not a professional army overall with some additional, English and Scottish volunteers.  It was mostly local militia who were ill trained and ill equipped but who had a lot of determination and belief in their cause.  They were however supported by French regulars who were elite troops and possessed artillery and professional modern small firearms to complement the Jacobite army.  The Williamite army had swelled to 36,000 strong with the 31,000 being made up of as usual a multiethnic mostly mercenary army that combined English and Scottish Protestant volunteers, German, French Huguenot and even Danish troops on loan from Denmark, joining what William regarded as his best troops, the Dutch regulars, namely the elite Dutch Blue Guards who were the Dutch army’s best infantry.  He held his Dutch troops in the highest regard followed by along with the Danish contingent and his other mercenary forces from France and Germany.  His opinion of his English and Scottish troops was overall low, regarding them as unreliable and a potential political liability in the uncertain times they faced.  His only praise for British troops under his command were the Ulster Scots Derry and Enniskillen Volunteers from Ulster that had defended that town the year prior from the Jacobites, convinced of their toughness and belief in the cause, he deemed them as reliable as any in his force.

The two forces would meet on the River Boyne in County Meath, near the town of Oldbridge and what was July 1, 1690 in the Old Style calendar and is now recognized as July 12th, 1690.  William in surveying the narrow river was nearly killed by Jacobite artillery the day before.  Nevertheless, he survived and ordered a war camp to plan the next day’s battle.  After scouting the area, the Williamites who held the north side of the river, planned to launch an attack further down from the main concentration of the Jacobite forces who held the south side of the river and held the high ground.  The Boyne was narrow and not especially deep but its current surprisingly strong and would make navigating it mostly on foot tough under any circumstances not least while under lethal enemy fire.  Roughly a quarter of the Williamite forces attempted a diversionary attack at the ford further westward from the main attack.  James, an inexperienced general worried this was an outflanking maneuver and diverted the majority of his forces, including his best French forces to counter this move.  The Williamite forces under morning mist forded the river into a marshy ravine as part of their diversionary tactic and came under withering Jacobite artillery.  However, the infantry on both sides didn't account for this ravine and actually had to sit the battle out as the artillery on both sides of the river ineffectually fired at each other.  With the bulk of the Jacobite force now engaged in a pointless artillery duel and unable to engage the enemy or retreat due to the terrain James had made a major blunder and severely weakened his force.  The battle meanwhile took place at Oldbridge and the ford near their.  The Williamite troops advanced with the Dutch Blue Guards taking the lead as they waded across the river chest deep under enemy fire.  Only the skilled discipline and repeated volleys of the Dutch troops allowed the Williamite forces across while the Jacobites pinned them down.  William’s second in command, the Dutch born Duke of Schomberg was killed in this phase of the battle.  The French Huguenots were also badly bloodied by Jacobite suppressing fire but the arrival of Williamite cavalry gradually pushed back the Jacobite cavalry and allowed the Williamites to rise out of the river banks and up the high ground as the weight of their superior numbers started to take effect wearing down the Jacobites.  James fled the battlefield rapidly at this point and his army’s morale collapsed and only the counter attacks of their cavalry during their retreat prevented a full on rout and disordered withdrawal where more causalities were certain.  In total only 2,000 combatants died in a battle that had over 50,000 participants from both sides engaged, comparatively low given the numbers.  3/4ths of the dead were on the Jacobite side while the Williamites had a greater overall number of wounded.  William also restrained his forces from harming James’s person which in turn restricted the likelihood of a full on pursuit.  The Williamites had won the day though not definitively the war, though James fled Ireland in quick succession within days of the battle having fled first to Dublin and then southward on a ship back to France.

In the aftermath, James retreat from the field and from Ireland angered his supporters, they named him James the Shit for his supposed cowardice and tactical blunders.  Nevertheless, the Jacobite cause would persist for his heirs , the Stuart pretenders to the throne off and on in Ireland and later in Scotland among the Highlanders well into the 18th century finally collapsing with the Jacobite defeat to the British government at the Battle of Culloden under his grandson known to history as Bonnie Prince Charlie.  James spent the rest of his life in exile abroad in France, the French would back the Jacobite cause until the very end at Culloden though it would prove ultimately ineffective at restoring Catholic or Stuart rule.  For William, the war continued with a siege of the regrouped Jacobites at Limerick in 1690 after which he left back for England.  His subordinates besieged Limerick once more in 1691, effectively ending this phase of the war for the Grand Alliance.  The Battle of the Boyne wasn’t initially seen as a major victory in Ireland since the fate of that theater of war still was uncertain but it was viewed with praise elsewhere in Europe as a check on both James ambitions and more importantly a check on French ambitions and influence in general.  Ultimately, the war would be a series of mixed results for both sides, many French gains were reversed and the French had to make peace after seeing crippling financial costs to maintain large armies the world over.  William for his part was recognized by Louis XIV as King of England, Scotland and Ireland along with his wife Mary and the Dutch Republic had territory returned and its fortified lines maintained.  French power had been curbed somewhat but not completely.  In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession that was to dominate the first 15 years of the 18th century, the rivalry between France and England and the Dutch would only grow to larger more epic proportions.

Regionally, the battle was the first step to securing William and Mary’s reign and the rights of Protestant rule of the British throne which nominally persists to this day.  William would survive Mary and rule on his own until his own death from a pneumonia after a horse riding accident in 1702.  They had no children of their own and so succession was passed on to Mary’s sister Anne who in turn died without heir and gave rise to the House of Hanover from Germany taking over Britain, they were the nearest living Protestant relatives of Anne and Mary, their direct descendants include George III, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II ruling to this day as the House of Windsor.  During Anne’s reign England and Scotland unified their parliaments in London and the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland now unified as one Kingdom, Great Britain laying the foundation for the modern state.  In Ireland, the Battle of the Boyne solidified Protestant rule for the next two centuries plus.  It helped give rise to the new Anglo-Irish Anglican Protestant class that came to be the dominant political elite giving rise to many famous Irish politicians and artists in the coming years, ruling all of Ireland until independence of the Irish Free State and later Irish Republic in the 20th century.  It also gave voice to the Ulster Scots as a community, though in the 18th century changes to the laws excluded Scottish Presbyterians in favor of Anglicans.  Presbyterians gradually found themselves excluded from political rights and likewise in time found common cause with Irish Catholics.  Some Ulster Scots took up an Irish identity like Hiberno-Normans had years before and along with Irish Catholics and some Anglo-Irish Anglicans fought in several of Ireland’s numerous rebellions in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Hundreds of thousands emigrated to America and founded the influential Scots-Irish community within the United States and were particularly active in the American Revolution.  Boyne also cemented the divisions in Ulster that persist in modern Northern Ireland culminating in the violence of the Troubles and a tense peace that exists in the 21st century.  Hailed by Protestants as a great victory its anniversary is celebrated annually by the Orange Order which is a fraternal order in Northern Ireland mostly, to celebrate Ulster Protestant and unionist culture, though this practice is controversial with Irish Catholics.  Northern Ireland remains a somewhat segregated though more peaceful society between mostly Northern Irish Protestant Unionists that make up Ulster’s majority and mostly Northern Irish Catholic Republicans.

[capricornsicle]

Tisquantum, taken as a slave by Thomas Hunt, along with 19 other Patuxet and 7 from another tribe, did not return to his homeland by chance, but by his own ingenuity. English recollections of Tisquantum returning describe a somber march through untended fields, empty settlements, and skeletons bleached by the sun.

It’s estimated that 90% of the Native population of “New England” was wiped out by disease, and it came in waves, extending beyond just the Patuxet tribe and annihilating great numbers of Narragansett, a significant enemy of the Wampanoag confederation (the Narragansett is also the tribe my father was), and continually sweeping through Native populations as European colonizers increasingly took the land, saying that God was being favorable by leaving them the established settlements and the numerous graves of the Natives who lived there before they were routinely massacred by disease and by the colonizers themselves.

Tisquantum had a tenuous relationship with the leader of the Wampanoag confederacy, Massasoit, who tended to be more hostile towards Europeans (probably because he had been there while Natives of all kinds were killed in the worst of ways, the only survivors some young and fit people taken into slavery, never to return to their home). After Tisquantum’s death (also by disease), Massasoit was more free to attack colonists, and in the ensuing wars, Europeans proved themselves more disease-carrying and more brutal, seeing children over the age of 7 as adults fit to work (and to fight), willing to massacre entire villages while Natives generally were not.

It is unknown what Tisquantum’s name may have been before he was kidnapped into slavery. I am of mixed Algonquian heritage, member of the Nehiyawak (Cree tribe). We don’t call our children like that. Because the word “tisquantum” is about the rage of the Manitou, the spirit that inhabits all things. The name he chose for himself, to the English who colonized the land, would have meant something more like “wrath of god”.

And as one key figure in a battle his people ultimately lost, a man who prevented an inevitable genocide for years, he sure fucking was.

[sunkeepersolarpunkmusic]

Free Solarpunk Essay for your thoughts

There’s not many essays and findings in academia that are given away to anyone without special access, so since I just got a 100 on my Environmental Ethics Reflection Essay, I’m posting it here for solarpunks it might benefit to think about these ethics considerations. (hit read more for essay)

My environmental ethic in recent years has grown to center around bolstering man’s integration with the environment. I see almost any given postulation regarding land use ethics to pat its own back while its front is on fire. In other words, people’s ideas about the proper use or stewardship of the environment always hit a wall when challenged in their authority. This wall is also invisible, so to speak, meaning where a moral or ordained boundary (or lack thereof) cannot be decided on without agreeance upon what humanity “should” be doing with the planet it is occupying. I have, in my infinite naiveté as a single human being with single brain, begun to embrace how “Capital I Integration” may be the most productive way forward in how man both heals and continue to utilize the environment for its inevitable “progress”—whether or not we can all agree it was ordained to make such progress.

Firstly discussed will be how the idea of integration relates to the documentary film In Light of Reverence, where indigenous North American people are interviewed in opposition to Western culturists, typically Caucasian, where the two parties clash over the use of various natural areas. Perhaps it’s more accurate to state that the film is highlighting the “innate stewardship” that Native Americans have shown since their use of North American lands began and the Manifest Destiny-driven sense of construction, innovation and progress that European settlers brought with them along with their genocidal colonization effort in the Americas. With God as their witness, and the power of their environmental use destiny still uncontested, Western lineages in the United States can’t be discounted in environmental ethic due to the gravity of their claim to have been ordained as fate-bound stewards of the land.

In contrast to the western settlers and their intent to use sacred grounds for recreation and “weekend conquering,” Native Americans—dwindling in number and power since the pilgrims came—still hold firm in their also-religiously-mandated approach on worshiping the land literally. The irony is how these peoples had originally not occupied these lands either, and that their rationale does not extend beyond what they are religiously (and/or culturally) inclined to believe about environment use. Native Americans believe in serving and protecting the land (read: environment), only using what is necessary for survival from it. While it can be easy to think this approach to man’s exchange with his environment is most productive in the new Anthropocene Era, there are myriad counterarguments available to support how now, more than ever, humanity should be developing technologies to stitch the wounds inflicted on our planet by the same technologically-prone cultures which caused them. Here we find how these (and other) ideas about how man should relate to the planet reveal themselves to be culturally masturbatory paradoxes the moment they’re challenged by anyone who can zoom out their thinking far enough to examine them from outside the scale of “man versus man.”

As a frequent explorer of existentialism and ethics considerations, I know that where paradoxes are found, danger lurks—not unlike how Val Plumwood’s advising ranger warned her that the swift currents of a main river in the Kakadu wetlands would bring her into the gnashing teeth of crocodiles. Plumwood would, out of selfish curiosity, find herself in these areas anyway on her exploration of the paperbark wetlands, and it is by the same selfish curiosity I worry mankind will continue exploring the forest of environmental ethics paradoxes until they find themselves in their own set of gnashing teeth. Val Plumwood has the wherewithal to know her run-in with the wild element of nature was not indicative of any malicious intent of nature. Instead, Plumwood echoes in Being Prey how the crocodile who had nearly eaten her should not be condemned, for man is physiologically part of the food chain regardless of his beliefs or origin.

So, too, is man part of the environmental stability chain regardless of his beliefs or origin. In the next century and beyond, the way humanity treats the planet will determine how safe it is. Plumwood’s warning was “stay clear of dangerous waters” and our warning as a species in the 21st century is “stay clear of environmental paradoxes.” In other words, if a notion about how to interact with the environment was planted in a factually unverifiable bed of soil (like religious ordainment, for example), it must be repotted at the dawn of the Anthropocene Era as the human race begins to work as an increasingly collectivist organism.

This is where I find myself embracing wholly the idea of integration with nature rather than preservation of or stewardship of it, or so on. I find that, since construction/progression is inevitable in the cultures that cannot be dissuaded from having that sort of influence on the environment, the productive elements of that worldview should be taken and adapted with more preservationist worldviews to balance the destructive tendencies of either (here referring to how Western culture views the lack of use of the environment as a “waste,” thus it is equally as  destructive as their pollution from cities, etc.)

When viewing the future of cities and human-nature cooperation from “integrationist” eyes, cities look like structures within natural environments rather than separate or in opposition of them. Wildlife is relatively unhindered, yet commerce, innovation, technology and civilizations in general can continue to thrive and grow so long as they are carbon-neutral or better. Saturated sustainability taking priority creates a “new final frontier” for “alpha cultures” like those of the US, Europe, Russia, Korea, to compete to dominate in. Singapore, Costa Rica, etc. are finding explosions in growth since their refocusing on a sustainability paradigm within their infrastructures, and the dying embers of post-war-obsessed generations and countries will finally be rekindled with senses of cultural pride as soon as the race for sustainable cities and nations becomes the new standard for economic value.

Talking more specifically, biomimicry in design is growing in its influence across all industries. Mimicking nature, designers of all sorts of things have discovered that efficiencies beyond imagination can be unlocked the moment something is redesigned according to nature’s exact specifications. Theologians and scientists can both agree on the results, since biomimicry does not need proof of either. The invention of Velcro as an “adhesive fabric material” benefited humanity the world over—whether it was evolution and adaptation or God who developed the burs which stick so easily to animal fur, where through nature the invention was discovered. The Shinkansen bullet train was changed to not create sonic booms when exiting tunnels any longer, not because of a redesign formed by a human, by a redesign according to the exact specifications of a kingfisher’s avian beak. Termites are teaching us how to design sustainable buildings, dolphins are teaching us how to send signals underwater, humpback whales are teaching us how to create efficient wind power. The list goes on and will only grow as more of nature’s processes are examined for the sake of man’s sustainability and integration with nature.

As an author for the solarpunk movement, a new genre of fiction exploring eco-centric futures of man’s relationship with the environment, I absolutely stand behind the idea of integration between the two. A zero-waste preservationist would say integration still can damage and change the environment, and a fossil fuels industry billionaire would argue that integration would disrupt socio-economic prosperity the world over for the “boring” notion of balance between man and nature. I find that, usually, when two opposing extremists equally despise a compromising ideality, it’s probably the best possible solution to move forward with in the complex Venn Diagram that is “practical ethics”—and I’m sure the motion carries to environmental ethics in the first century where they really, truly matter. Only time will tell, as always, yet in this case, time is very, very angry. I guess for once, compromise might have to take precedent in the eyes of the collective human race.