portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | prisons & prisoners dnc & rnc actions

International Surrealists Against the RNC (NYC)

An international surrealist statement against torturocracy on the occasion of the imperial coronation of George W. Bush
BREAKING the LEASH
A Surrealist Statement Against Torturocracy
on the Occasion of the Imperial Coronation of George W. Bush

Of the dungeons there had been strange things narrated—fables, I had always
deemed them—but yet strange, and too ghastly to repeat, save in a whisper.
—Edgar Allan Poe, "The Pit and the Pendulum"

In general, surrealists tend to ignore the hubris, ignorance, and narcissism of the electioneering so adored by the war-addicted Democratic-Republican axis of elites. Yet, in the 1947 tract Freedom is a Vietnamese Word (later republished in the pages of the anarchist newspaper Le Libertaire), surrealists in Paris singled out a specific French governmental cabinet's newly-minted colonial war in southeast Asia: "Surrealism can only be against a regime whose members stand together behind a blood-stained disgrace as though it represents a joyful awakening." All governments are equally reprehensible, but any one that can so easily "collapse into the mire of compromise and extortion can be nothing but the calculated prelude to the establishment of a new totalitarianism," the tract explained. We were reminded of this when the Democratic Party convened in Boston in July, and again as the Republican Party bosses, their underlings, and their henchmen gather in New York City. In both instances, the party apparatuses happily stand together behind the bloody crimes of mass murder and torture in US-controlled Afghanistan and Iraq. We shudder to think about their next petro-imperialist crimewave against humanity which will be shrouded in the red, white and blue banners of this racist Christian civilization.

Systematic torture and the full-scale degradation of victims by the forces of law-'n'-order in Iraq is a symptom of the logic of the State and its inherent racist, colonialist configurations (tellingly, many of the soldiers directly responsible for meting out this abuse have worked as prison guards
in the US). The awful humiliation and excruciating torment in US military prisons are not used solely to force prisoners into revealing vital information about the guerrilla war or into betraying their friends and family who may be taking up arms against the occupation and its quislings. Torture is also a coercive political technology deployed to terrorize and to demoralize an insubordinate population and to suppress the bitter truths about the rancid excesses of capitalism and the colossal failures of its wars.

Although the roads to the Abu Ghraib dungeon and the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp all intersect at the center stage podium of the Madison Square Garden this week, none of us are naïve enough to think that these are exceptional phenomena isolated to only one group of politicians. The spokes of torturocratic ideologies radiate out far from the helpless individual whose body and will are being broken on its wheel. Torture is a routine activity happening every day in any number of countries throughout the world as an integral part of security operations, law enforcement systems, and State authority. Any consolidated power, not just that of the Bush-Cheney regime but the entire apparatus of the State itself, passes on its surplus of accumulated violence to the next coterie of corporate executives, military officers, and civil bureaucrats regardless of political party affiliation. This power is disguised as "national security" and "public safety," but it is nothing more than statist and capitalist self-interest. Therefore, police and military torture cannot be eliminated through well-intentioned legal-aid groups and human-rights reform movements—it can only be curtailed by the sustained dismantling of the State's pretensions to moral and civil authority and its jealously-guarded monopoly on violence.

It is for these reasons that we feel obligated to re-assert surrealism against this ghoulish and self-congratulatory revival meeting in New York City this week. As the Republicans righteously speechify about this most terroristic war on terrorism, and as they swagger throughout the city
attempting to sate their sanctimonious gluttony, we will be thinking of the lives that they so carelessly have helped to destroy in the last four years. Every time one of them spouts some twisted balderdash about "freedom," we ask that you remember their feverish efforts to build a prison planet, a sprawling carceral archipelago of violence, rape and fear stretching from Guantánamo Bay to Kabul, and from Baghdad to places like the infamous women's High Security Control Unit in Lexington, Kentucky, and the jails being used by the NYPD to cage our friends for speaking out against the RNC.

We denounce the snowballing totalitarianism practiced domestically and internationally by the Bush-Cheney regime that is being applauded and honored at the Republican National Convention. Out of solidarity with the elegant wildfires of liberty, imagination, spontaneity, and sensitivity, we stand united and resolved against war, occupation, and murderous humanitarianism. Freedom now, against jailers and police everywhere! Open the prisons! Disband the army!


Surrealists International

OK 20.Aug.2004 13:04

Sign me up!

Sounds like a fun group to be allied with- may your numbers grow.

Nice sentiment 20.Aug.2004 21:58

skeptic xtrucial@hotmail.com

I am surprised that your article got bumped to "front page" status with so few comments (mine being, as I write this, the second one). But I like your writing and I agree with your sentiment. The problem with your approach, as with the approaches of most radicals (whether they call themselves that or not), is that it is too soft.

I was a reluctant Kerry supporter. Now I am a strong Kerry supporter. The thing about me and Kerry and anyone else in the "system" that you care to name, is that we don't believe it is possible to "tear down" the system, to "smash the state," and so forth.

If you'd read as much about evolution as I have--and certainly *all* of us observe the effects of evolutionary daily--you might agree that humans are *built* for hierarchical social structures. We inherited that; we have not shaken off that legacy.

I think co-ops and PTAs and all those things are great. Small democratic systems work fine. If you are in a group of a few friends and you want to vote on a place to eat out that night, cool.

But as successful groups inevitably move on to larger projects and the groups become larger, the only way humans know how to handle that is through hierarchies. Grunt A reports to Supervisor B who in turn reports to Regional Manager C, and so on.

It sucks that we're limited by our biology in this way. And there are plenty of other ways we're limited by it (fragile knees, backs, STDs, etc.). However, people who don't acknowledge these limits play at being college-level revolutionaries for their whole lives and get very little done.

Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and more recent examples of famous, successful social leaders like Clinton and Kerry all *know* that leadership is useful. Just imagine if Gandhi or Martin Luther King had decided to screw around with an anarchist commune instead of doing what they did.

Politics sucks, I agree. Hierarchies are a pain in the ass, I agree. But they are necessary.

hierarchies are neither necessary nor natural 20.Aug.2004 22:19

educate yourself

Instead of reading biology you should spend some time reading anthropology. Plenty of human cultures have existed without power hierarchies, therefore it is not something biological or genetic. To believe so reduces on to a level of biologic reductionism where one may as well give up. After all, wouldn't you just argue that humans are wired for violence as well. And the escalation of violence, and weapons of mass violence can lead to only one inevitable outcome. If humans are truly wired in this way we will go extinct. But why would we be wired in such a self-destructive way? And if we were, why worry about anything accept "getting mine before you get yours"?

If you accept mental limitations by your biology I feel sorry for you and I hope you recognize that many people will not.

As for Gandhi, he did "screw around" with an anarchist commune. And King worked with black communities who were also organized in non-hierarchal fashion, often centered around, but not led by, their churches.

Oh and putting Kerry and Clinton in the same paragraph as Gandhi and King makes me ill. Kerry and Clinton hurt the poor and oppressed where Gandhi and King fought for them. Let's not try to draw any parallels where only perpendiculars exist.

Re: hierarchies are neither necessary nor natural 20.Aug.2004 22:55

skeptic xtrucial@hotmail.com

"Instead of reading biology you should spend some time reading anthropology."

I've read a bit of anthro, but am not too interested. They are about as scientifically rigorous as clinical psych, communication studies, etc. There is a lot of literature to back me up on this. It is even collected in books for your convenience:

 http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/fraudsweb/frauds.htm


"Plenty of human cultures have existed without power hierarchies"

This is the claim that's always made. I've heard it before. But where's your evidence? Any truly anarchic communities rarely last more than a few decades. They are social experiments and social failures


"To believe so reduces on[e] to a level of biologic reductionism where one may as well give up."

Here's a big error that some social scientists make when they refuse to learn hard sciences. It is reducio ad absurdum, and in this case, the conclusion really is absurd. Did I once advocate "giving up" in my post? No.

What I am saying is that hierarchies are useful, and in the case of humans, they are necessary. You later conflate this with violence, because, yes, hierarchal structures can include violence.

However, this isn't *necessarily* the case. Was there Democrat-on-Democrat violence at the recent rallies in Portland? In fact, we know that there was very little violence (the one Bush-supporter slapping the anti-Bush protestor).

This is the same faulty reasoning that neo-luddites use against technology. "Well look at the atom bomb and Monsanto. Technology is *inherently* bad." No, technology is a tool, just like hierarchies are a tool. Both of them can be used clumsily.


"As for Gandhi, he did 'screw around' with an anarchist commune. And King worked with black communities who were also organized in non-hierarchal fashion, often centered around, but not led by, their churches."

Maybe so. But they didn't do this forever. And Portland anarchists, post-modernists, or whatever you want to call people who don't like authority and structure, DO behave that way forever.

Some of them become tenured professors and confuse wind-baggery with action. Others confuse an anti-police deck of cards with action. These things are all very cute and clever, but they don't accomplish anything.


"Kerry and Clinton hurt the poor and oppressed where Gandhi and King fought for them."

Again, maybe so. But on balance, Kerry and Clinton do a LOT more for poor/oppressed people than Portland, Seattle, San Fran, etc. radicals. Leader, leadership, hierarchies, structure... these aren't things to be feared as inherently bad.

sparkle girl support surrealist insurrection! 21.Aug.2004 00:17

sparkle girl

"In short, just as the noise of the 'big bang' still resonates through the universe, so the overdetermined construction of world 'civilization' as a product of the rise of Europe and the subjugation of the rest of us, still defines the race concept."
Michael Omi and Howard Winant

"Incantations, spells and other forms of magical power raising were woven into many of these actions by the increasing numbers of self-identified pagan and witch activists, similarly at Diablo Canyon, Vandenburg, and Livermore and at the women's actions at the Pentagon in 1980 and '81 and at the Seneca Women's Peace Camp in 1983. Comparable approaches were used by activists as part of the 1984 protests at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco."
Kubrin, Battle Of Seattle

"Freud's compassion for the ego is a compassion for the human race, labouring under the almost intolerable demands placed upon it by a civilization built on the repression of desire and the deferment of gratification."
Eagleton


"Foucault once said that he deprived 'the sovereignty of the subject of the exclusive and instant right to discourse.' That is good news. I believe that the geography of African gnosis also points out the passion of a subject-object who refuses to vanish. He or she has gone from the situation in which he or she was perceived as a simple functional object to the freedom of thinking of himself or herself as the starting point of an absolute discourse. It has also become obvious, even for this subject, that the space interrogated by the series of explorations in African indigenous systems of thought is not a void."
mudimbe
the transvaluation of colloidal oatmeal
the transvaluation of colloidal oatmeal
sparkle girl-music for teeth
sparkle girl-music for teeth
sparkle girl-ebola rain dance
sparkle girl-ebola rain dance

do not confuse hierarchy with leadership 21.Aug.2004 00:18

educate yourself

Did you even read the link you posted? I suspect not given its content. Maybe you should check it out a little more thoroughly.

"But where's your evidence?"

Well there are hundreds of books on thousands of cultures. But you're "not too interested" in that so I wouldn't expect you to be aware. It strikes me as odd because when I hear a repeated claim I usually take the time to investigate it on the chance that there's something there for me to learn, but perhaps that is not a usual course of action. Perhaps it is the challenge to your world-view that makes you less interested. What if people had the choice between establishing hierarchical power relationships or to establish a myriad of other forms of relationships? Just think about that concept would alter your view of the world and your place in it. It would be quite significant so one can understand your reluctance.

"Any truly anarchic communities rarely last more than a few decades."

And of course you can back that up with evidence.

"Did I once advocate "giving up" in my post? No."

Actually, you did:

"Politics sucks, I agree. Hierarchies are a pain in the ass, I agree. But they are necessary."

Hierarchies are a pain in the ass but they are necessary, i.e. you can't change it so don't bother trying. There is no other logical conclusion from your statement. If hierarchy was inevitable it would be pointless to try and change it, so why bother. I'm telling you there is a choice, as many people know, and you might be wise to consider.

"Maybe so. But they didn't do this forever."

Actually, both continued their work with communities until they were killed.

"But on balance, Kerry and Clinton do a LOT more for poor/oppressed people than Portland, Seattle, San Fran, etc. radicals."

Can you back up this claim. Clinton and Kerry ushered in "welfare reform" which hurt many people in poverty. Compare that to, say, Food Not Bombs which provides free healthy food for anyone that wants it. I admit, I said poor when in fact I meant people living in poverty, which is but one segment of the poor. Certainly raising the minimum wage was a benefit to working poor. But for those in poverty Clinton and Kerry worked against them.

"Leader, leadership, hierarchies, structure... these aren't things to be feared as inherently bad."

Of course, now you're conflating several independent notions. Hierarchy does require structure, but not vice versa. And leadership does not require a hierarchy. In fact those at the tops of hierarchies are often poor leaders (though I suspect this depends on one's notion of a "poor leader") which is why the require the hierarchy. Did Gandhi and King preside over a hierarchy? No. They were leaders as leaders have been understood throughout history, particularly in communities. A leader is one with wisdom, creativity, perhaps ingenuity. A leader is someone to be turned to for advice, not orders. This is one of the reasons Gandhi and King were successful, and why the next great leaders will arise from the "radicals" you disparage.

Read up on the lives of Gandhi and King and their contemporaries. Not the grade school education we're all force fed, but the real history. You'll have a much better understanding of what needs to be done in this country, and how it will happen.

If history, anthropology, and other social sciences don't interest you then you can also turn to business for these same concepts. Many modern business texts recognize the inerrant inefficiency to hierarchical structures. Particularly in larger organizations where the inefficiencies can become monstrous the ideas of "self-managed teams" and "self-directed teams" with coordinators (since the term "manager" has acquired such a hierarchical sense) have become quite popular due to their successful use.

It's not my place to tell you how to live or think but I would suggest that you not write off possibilities that you may find quite rewarding and beneficial. Those who are wise always appreciate the possibilities and keep an open mind.

torturememo's 21.Aug.2004 03:41

A


Jane Goodall makes a better political pundit than Jim Hightower 21.Aug.2004 06:23

Brighteyes

"Help is on the Way. Are We not Men?"

Foucault No Freudian 21.Aug.2004 08:33

Aunty Oedipus

"Journal of Desire Armed" What a laugh. Corporations provide the desires...big "lack" attack. Mr. Science has found religion in biology. Science lives in same house as church...lives in cellar. Science is a situated meta-narrative with only trappings of "objectivity". Your "natural hierarchy" i.e. social Darwinist clap-trap belongs on shelf with Phrenology...and big bang cosmology for that matter.

a breif history of the state 21.Aug.2004 11:13

brent herbert

An argument can be made that a relationship exists between what we call 'heriarchies' (implying authoritarianism) and economic models. Human societies were not always organized around the principle of the 'state' as the means of organizing society. For an example of this sort of thing, one might consider consulting a commonly available archeological relic most people have access to ... its called the Bible. The Bible is interesting in this respect in that it covers the period of transition from 'non-herirarchical tribalism' (the earliest organization of society) through the period of the establishment of first the city state, then the national state, and finally the earliest empires.

The society described in the earliest relics found in the Bible resemble that of such tribes that survived into almost the modern age, such as the Dobe Kung of Africa, or the tribal organization of North
American natives.

 http://www.antiquityofman.com/solway_lee_kalahari.html


"Revisionists rely on post-modernist dependency and world-system theories...analysis of 17th-century Huron society strongly supports Clastres's (1977) argument that small-scale egalitarian societies have powerful built-in mechanisms that actively oppose the development of social and political inequality."

Arguments for the heirarchical organization of human society as being 'natural' (based on Social Darwinist arguments from 'biology') ignore the facts from history, in which these statist heirarchies only developed in response to the establishment of economic inequalities, which then required state power to protect and hold in place (the state then exists to protect these accumulations of private property). For the majority of human history on this planet such a concept of economic inequality did not exist, and the state did not exist, forming only about four to five thousand years ago (here the Bible proves valuable as an anthropological study of this transitional period).

The Bible describes an early pastoral society, based on tribalism, which continued to exist for a time as new city states were first emerging. There was no centralized power described in the Bible in these tribal societies, for the majority of human history and people got along just fine, surviving for many eons after all, right up to the time when this so called natural state power then developed as concentrations of wealth and power first appeared, making heirarchical power structures neccesary. The only authority described in the Bible was that of 'judges', and this was a person whom people would go to when they wanted to settle some squabble among members of the tribe (usually an elder). A judge however was not a 'king' or a ruler.

The transition between tribal life and the rise of the state was the source of great controversy and the books of Samuel in the Bible actually consists of two disparate sources, one pro monarchy and the other pro tribal and anti monarchy.

The anti-monarchist source accurately describes the economic forces driving the process of the rise of the first states in the world. Those who were attempting to resist this process stated their objections to the rise of heirarchical state power as follows...

1st Samuel 8:5
Now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations."
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." ... you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.
So Samuel said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots;
and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.
He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.
He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work.
He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.
And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day."
But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No! but we will have a king over us." ... Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? There is none like him among all the people." And all the people shouted, "Long live the king!"
... you have this day rejected your God, who saves you from all your calamities and your distresses; and you have said, 'No! but set a king over us.' Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your thousands."
The above summarizes the arguments of those opposing the new rising power of the newly created state. Before this time no state or heirarchies existed, and as I said, the Bible proves to be such a valuable resource in this regard as it happens to cover the transtiional period leading to the rise of the first states (and thus it is just one more resource which refutes the Social Darwinist argument that supposedly argues from 'biology' that human beings, 'by their very nature' require the heirarchical power of the state to govern them. Rather, those who first opposed this new form of political organization argued that it was an expression of new forms of economic inequality and the drive to exploitation that were the driving forces in the development of the state, in that heirarchical power structures were required if people were to be exploited to use their labor to generate wealth for a few, and the state and heirarchy was required only to generate the required coercion and force that would be needed to institute wealty and economic inequality.

The anti-state forces (shall we call them the tribal anarchists of the time) based their anti-state argument on two premises - that the state was a model for a coming time of oppression for the purposes of economic exploitation, and it represented a 'rejection of God'. The pro monarchy source, also found in the book of Samuel, makes the argument that the king was a special type of person, and thus by natural design deserved to be king (the notion of 'blue blood' or 'royal pedigree') which is similar to the notion of Social Darwinism today (kingship is natural, what you would expect to hear from Social Darwinists after all). God had chosen the king (the divine right of Kings is another version of the same ideology that informs Social Darwinism today).

Samuel 10:23 When he (the king) stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.
And Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? There is none like him among all the people." And all the people shouted, "Long live the king!" Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship; and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.


The pro-Monarchy source follows the tale of the King's selection by God with the first story of the King's salvation of the nation through the first war victory. God moves mightily on the King and stirs him up so as to launch military action, and after being threatened by the King, the people respond to the first draft board notices to report for military duty. They 'give themselves up' to the power of the King to 'do with us whatever seems good to you.'

1 Samuel 11:6
the spirit of God came mightily upon (the King) ... his anger was greatly kindled.
He took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of messengers, saying, "Whoever does not come out after (the King), so shall it be done to his oxen!" Then the dread of the LORD fell upon the people, and they came out as one man...
'Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have deliverance.'"
Therefore the men... said, "Tomorrow we will give ourselves up to you, and you may do to us whatever seems good to you." And on the morrow (the King) put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the camp in the morning watch, and cut down the Ammonites until the heat of the day; and those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.

The story continues as again and again the people are called up by the ancient draft board and follow their king into war.

1 Samuel 13:4 And all Israel heard it said that (the King) had defeated the garrison of the Philistines, and also that Israel had become odious to the Philistines. And the people were called out to join (the King) at Gilgal.

The Bible is an interesting archeological relic in that it describes both the ancient tribal system which existed into the distant past before the rise of the system of class inequality led to the rise of the heirarchical state (therefore it is 'tribalism' and a type of social equality which one can argue is 'biological' while the heirarchical organization of society is a very recent change in natural human behavior.

One does not need to go far back in the past to find evidence for the 'biological' organization of human societies (tribalism with no great disparties in wealth and power) given that these things are found described in such documents as the Bible (the one piece of archeology that most people have near at hand). One can also look back just a century or two and see a tribal system with a elders in North America (these elders being the equivalent of the elder judges described in the bible, and in earlier times there are described in the Bible a type of spiritual shaman people would consult, these sorts of things being found in one form or another in societies around the planet.) The ancient tribal and hunter gatherer systems survived into the modern age and are a testimony to the early origins of human culture, and thus a refutation of the self serving claims of Social Darwinism which attempt to justify the heirarchical state, and thus inequality, by using arguments to suggest that is natural (the modern equivalent of the older arguments of the divine right of kings, the notion of good breeding and aristocracy, that can be found even in the Bible, and appear again and again in one form or another in heirarchical societies throughout their brief history on this planet, the so called Darwinist argument from biology just being the modern variation on this theme).

Among the primates our closest cousins, from a social and a biological perspective, are the Bonobo apes. The Bonobo live in a peaceful society that uses sex freely as a tool for social harmony (its hard to quarrel with the members of the tribe if you are sexually intimate with them). The Bonobo are bisexual (shooting down that psuedo argument 'from nature' supposedly made by the apostle Paul, which taught that same sex relationships were 'against nature'...apparently Paul, in the book of Romans, did not have much expertise in nature, or he would have known about the existence of same sex relationships among the primates, not to mention the sun fish. He might also have known about a species of lizard (I can't remember the name) which has only females who breed without males, and precede their breeding with a lesbian sex ritual, and so on. What this suggests is that sexual repression is a partner of heirarchy in that sexually non-repressive social organizations such as that of the Bonobo are peaceful societies, where sex is the cement which creates the social bonding between individuals. The bonobo, like humans, do not have an estrus cycle, which means that they have sex whenever they want, making this type of bonding a possiblity (and which also invalidates the Vatican argument against birth control, once again supposedly an 'argument from nature', which states that sex is only for 'pro-creation' because that is how animals with an estrus cycle do it, when nature actually testifies that beings without an estrus cycle have sex as social bonding tool).

Like humans the Bonobo live in a tribal society, with a system of elders. Their society is a peaceful matriarchy (examples of the same thing have existed, and still exist in human culture). The elders are not ruling authorities, but rather perform the function of providing a type of 'guidance' to younger bonobo, who, once they become elders will then be regarded in the same way by younger bonobo (so then you might say that everyone has a turn).

The Dobe Kung are interesting in that they preserved the ancient ('biological') lifestyle into modern times.

An interesting analysis of the 'economics' behind the traditional human society (interesting because it is economics, not biology, that drives heirarchy and the process of the rise of the state in the recent human past, not 'biology' or 'Darwinism')
 http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

Another view of the same phenomena, which describes the Social Darwinist view (where the rise of the state is considered progress along the evolutionary path) as follows...
 http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/foraging.htm
"Until 30 yrs ago, H-Gs were seen as culturally impoverished, ecologically vulnerable. This stereotype stemmed from Victorian notions of cultural progress (savagery to barbarism to civilization), which viewed contemporary foragers as "survivals" from earliest stage, living lives that were "nasty, brutish, and short" and too hard-pressed by constant struggle to stay alive to develop culture beyond the most rudimentary forms."

Ana analysis of the Right Wing Authoritarian ideology which informs social darwinism and the argument for the state (in short the argument states that human nature is essentially evil, making heirarchy and authority inevitable... the counter argument is that violence is fed by poverty and thus by the social inequality preserved by the RWA argument, and evidence from the real world supports this contention in that the very worst violence is always found where the worst poverty exists (the Congo, Rwanda etc) and even conflict in richer countries always centers around threats to livelihood)...therefore RWA ideology actually creates the very conditions that are then used as a justification for Right Wing Authoritarianism - the process is therefore circular, and so is the 'Social Darwanist argument'...

the link 21.Aug.2004 11:15

brent

i forgot the link to the page on the RWA
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition - A Summary


breaking the leash 21.Aug.2004 20:35

Keith Wigdor

Ladies and Gentlemen, When you read the above, "surrealist statement" speaking out against the vulgar RNC Convention, ask yourself this question; Is this surrealist statement made from an organized movement sincere for revolution? I ask this question because of the following post made by one of it's members at a forum run by the Portland Surrealist Group. "This looks really good. Brandon do you know how it will appear -- online, printed, both? Did Franklin Rosemont write this? I wasn't aware of anybody asking for signatures.

Edited by: ewbragg at: 8/20/04 3:52 pm"

Can we all sign this protest? Is this a surrealist statement that will ask for everyone to sign? Their is power in numbers. Does this surrealist statement have an author with a real name, instead of, "Depth Squad Distro"? IS the Surrealist Movement open for us all to be involved in?

Do you want to sign this statement, Keith? 22.Aug.2004 09:38

dadanarchist

Do you really want to sign the statement, Keith, or are you just being a pain in the ass as usual. Last I heard from you were publicly stating support for George W. Bush, thought the imperial war on Iraq was a great idea, and were squarely behind Bush's "war on terror" against "the arab fanatacists." Of course, perhaps you've changed your tune. I don't know because you censored your forum and pulled the plug on it. So do you want to sign this statement, Keith, or is it just more of your divisive bullshit?

dadanarchist, I wanna sign that document!!! 22.Aug.2004 10:30

Keith Wigdor

I want to sign that document! AND let EVERYONE sign! Stop writing false statements about me! I have never supported War nor Bush, nor do I support Kerry. Bush and Kerry must resign! Word is BORN, You are back at it again, making shit up on me! Democracy needs to be reformed and capitalism has to go! War is a tool you knucklehead and I do not support war. It is easy to manipulate you. Now, explain this statement, "Therefore, police and military torture cannot be eliminated through well-intentioned legal-aid groups and human-rights reform movements—it can only be curtailed by the sustained dismantling of the State's pretensions to moral and civil authority and its jealously-guarded monopoly on violence." dadanarchist, (Brandon and Jim), stop pretending! The State is an abstract concept, admit it. Now, in order to eliminate the cause of oppression, look to the source, that is FINANCE! The best way to fuck with the international military and police high-tech gulag is to bankrupt it!!! Dismantle their main source of income, BOYCOTT ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS! That is the first step, believe you me, idiot, the illicit black market in illegal narcotics FUNDS ALL Military and International Law-Enforcemnent. That is the first step. Then, collectively unite with ALL legal-aid groups throughout the world to SUE, yes, SUE the shit out of all the world military and police agencies for violating their contracts to protect and serve the ones they took their oath to, You and ME and the Public! Any Collective Action on a Mass Legal level will freak out the State-Apparatus of Corporate Martial Law! Plus, all that Heroin and Cocaine becoming worthless, with nobody as a consumer to be exploited WILL Force the Military and Police Agencies around the world to LOOK for another form of financing their gulag, AND they will be too caught up in trying to defend their legal case brought against them by the people for creating this Black Market Gulag of oppression. Also, to the working people of Portland, I say this, SLACK OFF, when your employer is not looking, HAVE FUN, yes, that is right folks, LIVE for Life for once. My goodness, 8 to 10 to 12 hours a day SUCKED out of your life By DRACULA himself, so you can just go back and SHOP like the Brainwashed tool that you have been turned into!!! Well, I say this, DO YOUR SHOPPING AT WORK!!! (psst, that is an inside message to the comrades, they know what I mean). As for protests, STAY ORGANIZED and MERGE with other groups! There is a great book, "Rules for Radicals" which is a real good read, correct me if I am wrong, but, I think the author is Saul Alinsky, I hope I spelled his name right. Also, the MOST IMPORTANT POINT: GIVE YOUR HEART AND SOUL AND MIND TO SURREALISM!!!!! Let that take up ALL of YOUR TIME and THOUGHT!!! Also, Bush really is Kerry in another human form and both back up Israel, which is a disgrace! Remember, the bird is a strict nest. Surrealism is ALIVE!

print it out then, Keith 23.Aug.2004 00:06

.

steal a pen and sign it

then show it to some people
it doesn't count unless some people witness you

brandon and eric you both yust mean 24.Aug.2004 10:00

Babek Andishmand

brandon and eric you both yust mean. I am Babek and I am surrealist! brandon, I give you to monday to respond!

The shrill, shallow Keithey strikes again 24.Aug.2004 11:58

Eric B KWIGDOR@si.rr.com

Keith, you just keep popping up, like an oozing, toxic zit. Haven't you found a new profession by now, other than being just the shrill, paranoid, reactionary freak that you are?

Once again, you find a new occasion to meddle with surrealists. You're pathetic and you never have anything interesting to say anyway. The more you try to grasp surrealism with your greedy, slimy, opportunistic paws, the more it pushes you away.

Oh, recently I came across a report about a new, degenerate animal species that just so happens to look and act just like you!

 http://www.surrealcoconut.com/doorwig1.html

Keith Wigdor, totally anti-semitic, racist freak 24.Aug.2004 13:29

Eric B KWIGDOR@si.rr.com

p.s.:

Keith, from your last sentence, it looks like your racism and anti-semitism are oozing out again, just like they have in other forums and places you have crashed. With you, it's like diarrhea of the brain. Why don't you tell the world how you really feel about non-white, non-christian people, you coward?!? In case you haven't figured it out yet, surrealism has nothing to do with racism, in any form. Does your diet still consist of twinkies?

iranian bird has freedom in nest 24.Aug.2004 13:51

Babek Andishmand

eric, wigdor is yust so crazy! you yust mean like brandon. surrealism is about love.

Keith Wigdor = 'Babek Andishmand' 24.Aug.2004 14:50

Eric B KWIGDOR@si.rr.com

In case anyone is wondering, Keith enjoys creating alter-ego email characters to play mindgames with other people. This month, he has been pretending to be "Babek Andishmand." Don't trust this guy at all. He's a total phony and has disrupted genuine surrealist forums on more than one occasion.

Eric Bragg, Stop Harrassing Me Online! 24.Aug.2004 20:25

Keith Wigdor

Eric Bragg, the last time that you sent me an E-mail, I specifically told you never to E-mail me again and to stop stalking me online and to stay away from me online, you scare me! I see that you even put my E-mail address in your posts! Please Stop That! I also told you to remove the harrassment page with those pictures on your website and you are still at it! Also, I am NOT Babek Andishmand, whoever the hell that is. I told you, no more E-mails, stay away from me online and to remove the Doorwig Gallery from your site! Eric, PLEASE get help, and in the meantime, PLEASE leave me alone!

See what I mean? 25.Aug.2004 04:56

Eric

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Keith. Time for you to get back on your medication. Will you visit the RNC? In the mental diahhrea you left on the wikipedia surrealism 'discussion', you mentioned that you thought that George W. Bush was a true surrealist. But, Oh, that must have been somebody else, right?

Anyway, Babek, you started this little game by being deceptive about your identity and pulling my quote/name off of the ezboard forum.

Burned any good books lately?

Wigdor is not a surrealist, but instead supports Bush. 25.Aug.2004 07:57

Eric B KWIGDOR@si.rr.com

And I quote Wigdor from June 2004, from the "discussion" section of the surrealism wikipedia entry:


"Dear Dan, I would have to agree with you that the Pope is definitely not a surrealist, but I must stand my ground and defend George W.Bush (he is the son of the CIA director and current president)as a surrealist! My goodness, Bush has done more to advance surrealism than Fantamos!!!!!!!!! "


It is a shame that such fools like Wigdor try to cloud the issue, especially in light of the admirable tract written by "Depth Squad Distro" which was the REAL origin of this particular "discussion." As usual, Wigdor has a talent for disrupting any valuable discussion with his ridiculous self-promotion, self-glorifying bullshit, always trying to turn the focus to him. Please remember folks, this is all about Keith Wigdor. All about Keith Wigdor.

In the meantime, let Wigdor and the RNC burn.

http://KWIGDOR@si.rr.com
KWIGDOR@si.rr.com
KWIGDOR@si.rr.com

Eric, Shame on You! 26.Aug.2004 20:50

Keith Wigdor

Xtian and Lady Hannah..... now that is Surrealism!!!! You know, them disappearing like that, WORD IS BORN!!!

Eric, Shame on You! 31.Aug.2004 15:50

Sylvia

freak

Surrealism as protest? 19.Mar.2005 17:19

exploited

This statement is total bullshit. Surrealism as protest? Please.