portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

imperialism & war

Cascade Free Market Policy Institute Press Release


On Saturday December 10th approximately 40 participants of Portland's Black Bloc, and a number of Anti-Imperialists marched in solidarity with democratic labor against the forces of the WTO and its minions. Shortly after the march began we broke off and stormed the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute in order to demonstrate our disgust with their private market, think tank activism.
Libertarian think-tank Cascade Policy institute ( http://www.cascadepolicy.org/) "leads the way locally in confronting smart growth myths and presenting alternative policy solutions." (Italics ours)

In contrast to community-based democratic planning, the Institute's alternative solutions rely on property rights, and market incentives. Their response to land governance seems to advocate decentralizing, thus breaking up the power local democracies use to plan the future of their land and resources to the benefit of all.

Cascade Policy's stand on unbridled "laze faire" capitalism, and their statement of principles illustrates that even the thinly-enforced, loosely defined environmental protections still in effect are too much for this hard-right think-tank.

With statements like:

"Over the last three decades America has increasingly looked to the federal government to protect the environment. Yet laws such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, Superfund, and The Endangered Species Act have proven costly and disappointingly ineffective." CPI clearly demonstrates their intent to rob us of our few hard won gains.

CPI's president and CEO published the following classics:

Free Market Environmentalism: Not an Oxymoron
Wheels to Wealth: Why Low-Income Workers Need Cars, Not Transit
Save the World, Ignore Global Warming

These are just a few examples of CPI's efforts to normalize the hard rights conspiracy to privatize our common resources. Their efforts stem from a bipolar worldview of America's political landscape. CPI's president John A. Charles, Jr. marks himself as the vanguard of this mentality with statements like:

"Distribution of power is the central issue of how we organize ourselves. There are two basic ways to approach this: one is to centralize power in government (creating a Political Society), and the other is to disperse power among individuals (known as Civil Society)."
( http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/misc/irrelevancy.htm)

Statements like this purposefully disregard the democratic heritage of this country. Purposefully disregard the vote, and civil rights inherent in every human being. Civil rights intended to be expressed in a political, and societal commons. Not separate, but equal ideas. Guess it's all in a day work at the "think tank."

On one hand this organization calls itself libertarian and speaks as if it is a front against "big government." On the other hand, this organization stands in solidarity with the forces of privatization spearheaded mainly by internationalist world government, and capitalism's elite. On the frontlines of this effort is an organization called the WTO. The WTO seeks reform nation's laws to make them consistent with an international standard or practice of privatized "free" trade. The WTO and its related organization the World Bank use strong arm loans, and international threats of organized economic sanctions to force countries into compliance with their un-elected, anti-democratic world government.
International law is international "government" and these "libertarians" do nothing to stand against it! Rather, they're known to do "favors" for money.

Recently libertarians ran a $100,000 Enron-funded campaign to keep "Portland's" General Electric private. The people of Portland need to ask our selves:
What do we stand for:
-Wars to rob whole nations of the people's resources?
-Do we stand for artificially high gas prices?
-Rolling blackouts?
-Do we stand for medicine priced beyond measure?
-Privatized WATER?
-PGE/Enron Park anyone?

Or do we stand against privatization, and the WTO's minions?

Our "Libertarian problem" 01.Jan.2006 20:22


I'm glad you are connecting the dots between the corporate criminals like Enron and the rightwing Libertarian "free market" ideology. The complicated thing about Libertarians is that their rhetoric and ideology appeal to a lot of antiestablishment people, because it sounds like it's all about "freedom" and against "big government." But the trouble is, this ideology has really been the cornerstone of the rightwing since Reagan. In their lexicon, "big government" is always a big problem when it helps poor people or gets in the way of the prerogatives of Enron and friends. But "big government" is just grand when it supplies billions of dollars to Halliburton and friends.

The trouble is, most grassroots "Libertarians" uncritically accept the fantasies of Libertarian politics, like the idea that you can be anti-imperialist without taking into any account the forces within capitalism itself that drive imperialism. They think that "big government" is the only force that can threaten freedom, without ever taking into account that our society is split into social classes, and that government in a capitalist society becomes a creature of economic elites.

The ideology of groups like Cascadia Policy Institute is truly obnoxious. But I don't know what the best way of confronting it is, without making them look like martyrs to "politically correct bullies" here in "ultraleftwing Portland." The irony is that Portland is one of the few cities in this country that remains slightly resistant to the kind of crap they are peddling, in a society that is otherwise almost totally dominated by rightwing extremist ideologies like theirs. This crap goes over so well precisely because it is so pseudo-populist, and wraps itself up in this pseudo-antiestablishment ("anti big-government") chic, so successfully that even many leftleaning people end up buying into it.

Noam Chomsky once said that subscribing to an unreflective, kneejerk "anti-big-government" rhetoric or ideology is like advocating that we tear down the bars of a cage we are trapped in, while there is a tiger right outside it ready to devour us. In short, it's basically suicidal. It's a whole lot more prudent in the short-term to work out ways to increase our maneuvering room -- enlarge the size of the cage -- until we can figure out how to turn the tables in the long-term (put the "tiger" back in the cage where WE are currently stuck, instead of the other way around). The "tiger" here is the "free market," and the elite rule that it creates.

Also, you are exactly right when you point out that the idolatrous glorification of the "free market" so much worshipped by groups like CPI directly undermines the possibility of real participatory self-government (aka, "democracy"). By consistently deriding any efforts at community self-determination as "meddlesome" and "big government" -- such as the strong support in places like Multnomah County for regional planning and urban growth boundaries -- CPI shows its contempt for democratic self-government. Groups like CPI don't want ordinary people to use the one political instrument at their disposal for controlling their own destinies -- participation in local and regional electoral government. They don't want people to ever come together and make any kind of collective decisions about the future at all -- certainly not if this results in any diminishment of the profit potential for participants in the "free market."

Instead, by the rules of their ideology, we must never demand that the future of our society be determined by anything but the anonymous, mindless, amoral forces of "the market," in which human beings are reduced to reptilian "consumers," responsible to no one but themselves and their own atomized, narcissistic, hyperindividualist urges.

So I'm troubled by the prospect of making these guys look like martyrs by using strongarm tactics against them. But I'm heartened that you are making the connections that really need to be made. If nothing else, maybe this can help people on the left, especially people who subscribe to vaguely "anarchist" political ideologies, re-evaluate their stance towards "government." Because when we study very carefully and analytically about things, we discover that kneejerk "antigovernment" rhetoric plays right into the hands of the rightwing. Whereas the truth of the matter is that there are good government programs (protecting endangered species, or enforcing workplace safety rules) and bad ones (dropping bombs on Iraq, or throwing millions of people in prison on petty drug charges).

well, I consider myself an anarchist... 01.Jan.2006 23:47

social libertarian

...and your accusation that anarchists are approving of any vaguely anti-government policies is entirely false and a little offensive. Most anarchists I know are strongly anti capitalist, and I personally am probably more anti capitalist than anti state, although I do oppose both. Organizations like Cascade Policy Institute aren't really anarchist at all, as they support, as you pointed out, the hierarchies of capitalism. It's rather condescending to suppose that anarchists are just opening our eyes to opposition to free market. Not only could I cite centuries of history and theory, I could also remind you of Seattle. WTO.

sorry to get a bit snappish, but I just felt the need to correct that. Now, all we need is some more activity like this around here, because clearly there hasn't been enough to even get the point across as to what anarchists, believe.

Yea! 02.Jan.2006 09:04


I was wondering if there would be a press release on this. It was an awesome action, more so because those rabid pigs were so bent on keeping track of the black bloc, and totally missed this fun event.

YAY! Video available soon 02.Jan.2006 09:14


To see what this post is talking about, come to the next Videos from the Resistance show. There will be a short video on the anti-WTO march, including this event and all the fun at Schumacher's.

Trickle down theory my ass 02.Jan.2006 10:57


Free trade is expected to help 2% of the extreme poor raise thier income to $2 a week over the next two decades. Problem is it will pull many more people down into poverty.
Stop the free trade myths.

empowering action 03.Jan.2006 16:04


I'm glad to see a press release up about this. The action was awesome because of the immediacy of the target, the determination and cooperation of all imvolved, and the fact that we actually pulled off a successful action other than marching in circles. In other news, did anyone hear about how argentina paid off all its world bank debt by buying venezuelen bonds? they'd rather be in debt to venezuela at a higher interest rate than to be in debt to the world bank with its imperialist control over all a country's programs. interesting, eh? that autonomy is worth fighting for...these so called libertiarians in this think tank don't know the first thing about liberty if they say it is embodied in the WTO, world bank, or any part of the US government.

their focus belies their strategy 03.Jan.2006 17:32


If they're against big government, they should focus on working to abolish corporate personhood,before or instead of corporate taxes. If they're against tyranny and centralization, why are free markets considered "free" to them at all: business IS a form of centralization; the larger, the more tyrannical.When you become employed by a corporation, your labor becomes OWNED by that corporation, and your labor may be taxed because it does not belong to you. Why can't people like this think tank see that government has evolved as it has to be the servant of corporations? abolish corporate personhood and our system of government would be obselete. But no, Cascade Policy Institute chooses to focus on removing laws aimed at safeguarding the few resources that are actually left to people for free? Local coalitions and democracies, local "government" in the form of self-governance (that is, on a scale that can be participatory) are also a form of centralization, yes. But why favor business in general over participatory democracy in general? This where I start feeling their rhetoric is totally hypocritical.

A member of Cascade Policy Institute responds 04.Jan.2006 12:42

anti imperialist angela@wallowa.us

Here's an email we got from "Angela Eckhardt" < angela@wallowa.us> at Cascade Policy in response to this protest:

Most of the Cascade staff is off this week. I'm Angela Eckhardt,
publications director and director of the Rural Oregon Freedom Project.

I'm suspicious about someone speaking for the Black Bloc who is not an
anarchist. You are perhaps aware of charges that during Seattle's
infamous WTO riots, the Black Bloc was led by Delta forces in acts of
destruction to give anarchists a bad name. Watch Police State 2000 and Police State: The Takeover, available from www.prisonplanet.com.

Based on your email, I take it you are in favor of democratic socialism, not
anarchy. If that is the case we may have little to discuss. Democracy
is nothing more than majority rules; just ask any minority group how well
that works for liberty. Socialism, in turn, relies on tyranny of the
bureaucratic class.

Cascade focuses on public policy solutions that advance freedom, with
particular attention to Oregon state and local issues. We deal with
federal policies on an extremely limited basis, and generally do not address
international policy at all. For a libertarian public policy approach
to federal / international issues I refer you to the Cato Institute.
You'll find them highly critical of the international organizations you cite.
For example, see The World Bank Vs. The World's Poor
 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa092es.html or The Roadblock to a
Soverign Bankruptcy Law  http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj23n1/cj23n1-8.pdf.

Without exception, Cascade's policy solutions reduce the level of
government interference in our lives. I would guess that your problem with
Cascade's approach is that it could open the door to greater abuses by large
corporations and that is a concern, as freedom always does entail
risks. In particular, it is a concern because *some* corporations have had many years to grow unnaturally powerful and unethical by using the apparatus of government as a tool. Regulations protect these giants from competition
while the legal definition of a corporation (the fiction that corporations
are persons) shields them from liability. The solution to these government-created problems is not more government.

You should be aware that the term privatization means different things
to different people. I no longer use the term for that reason, but when I
did use it, what I meant was de-governmentalization. To others, it might
mean a chance to hand over valuable public assets to a private company in a
sweet-heart deal, but that is a function of the government being in
control of privatization. Cascade has railed against such uncompetitive
practices that fly under the mantle of "privatization." Likewise, globalization can mean many things. In an ideal world, it could mean the elimination of nation states and establishment of true, global free trade. In a doomed world, it could mean global government. On that regard, I can't understand why the United Nations and European Union are not included in your list of enemies.

I'm stunned that you would have a problem with decentralizing power or
moving from a political society to a civil society. The purely political
society is a totalitarian one; the purely civil society is an anarchist
one (meaning without a ruler). Free trade is an essential part of true
anarchist philosophy. Left to our own devices, humans naturally engage in trade. It takes a ruling power to stop two people from coming together to
exchange goods for their mutual benefit. For more on the right to trade, and the difference between free trade and what passes for it in modern society,
see  http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/fiscal/2005_10.pdf

If freedom and human rights are your concern, you severely missed the
mark when you chose to target me and others at Cascade. You should have done
your homework first. My own website is at  http://www.freedomsolutionsnw.org/.
What you'll find is an anti-authoritarian perspective, a consistent
defense of each person's innate right to self-determination, and not one single recommendation to resort to the power of government in solving a

As an anarchist myself, I must ask you to stop doing what you are doing.
Stop representing yourself as the Black Bloc and wearing the color of
anarchists. Your affinity for governments, votes and democratic
planning give up the lie. There is no substitute for freedom.

Angela Eckhardt

541 569 2012

Anarcho capital what? 04.Jan.2006 12:54

constant gardener

Here's a relevant image for the feature

Throwing the gas back for the Capitalists. 04.Jan.2006 16:30

Anti Imperialist

Dear Angela Eckhardt, Are you an anarchist? If you are against nationalism why did you write this article claiming that America's day of national "independence" is your favorite holiday?

Free Ideas: An Independence Day wish for Wallowa County

 link to www.google.com

Your assertion that "delta forces" led the black bloc in Seattle might pass muster as a plausible "conspiracy theory," but belies the experience of most people that participated in the bloc in Seattle. If you knew them, they'd tell you. Most of us went there peaceful protestors and came back radicalized, or made militant by experiences like having to return illegal military grade tear gas back to it's senders, and watching riot cops beat pedestrians, old ladies, and people in wheel chairs. According to local news the police "riot" was co-ordinate against us using STATE owned surveillance cameras mounted on street lights in Seattle. A quick Google search and you can have low bandwidth, single frame, access to them yourself.


You said: "Based on your email, I take it you are in favor of
Democratic socialism, not anarchy."

Honestly I know very few anarchists that support any government larger than a community's ability to communicate its intentions through consensus or a local democratic process. No one in our group is a nationalist to the degree that either the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Socialist Party, or the Libertarian Communist party is. We have no intention of running candidates for "anarchist president."

We are anti-imperialists. We stand against the worst manifestations of capitalism. We stood with anarchists that day, and felt a need to communicate our collective and individual frustrations with what you are doing. We are angry at the way you have consistently adopted the language of the WTO, World Bank, and stood against local efforts to promote local democratic control of our resources.

The blac bloc isn't an organization it is a tactic, similar to a bunch of people who playing frisbee in the park, because they like frisbees. We like social justice. We like community control. We don't like capitalism. We especially don't like it when capitalists kill, rape, or marginalize people and the earth for profit- we call this imperialism. Anarchists work to build community power through collective action, the blac bloc is just one tactic they use to do it.

Frankly we're a little confused at why an "anti government" organization like the Libertarians is running candidates for national office. It's also confusing why an anarchist would work for an organization that promotes free trade, makes national policy briefs, and doesn't take any public stand against the WTO.

As for your Cato article it seems a little odd that the Cato institute would support and promote earlier rounds of World Bank -WTO forums when they were strong arming nations into submission loans, then "waffle" on this position later when the WTO delegate nations insisted that they will only drop their corporate-state welfare when America and Europe did?

Here's an earlier version of your article strait off the Cato site:


Here's where we got it:
( http://www.freetrade.org/issues/globalization.html)

We think it might have something to do with your definition of "regulation." According to libertarian economics subsidies are not considered regulation. According to mainstream economics while subsidies may not be considered "regulation" they are manipulations of the market.

Local "manipulations" or subsidies in the marketplace require local governance or "regulation" to carry them out. They don't rob us "telekeneticly." Global subsidies to multinational companies require global regulations to carry them out. There are no subsidies without regulation, unless your name happens to be Enron, Bechtel, Osama Bin Laden, or the NSA. We think that maybe the reason Cato, like your think-tank doesn't focus on those "regulations" is because your organizations are funded by companies that depend on, or at least profit from them. Don't bite the Enron that feeds you, huh?

Do you want us to make a list of regulated subsidies given to your Cato's sponsors?

Give us a list of yours and we'll do you one better.

Now here's a question:

If property has rights, then don't people who control more property have more rights?

Now assuming that libertarians do stand for equal justice and common law why doesn't your organization stand against corporations, or at the very least corporate personhood? Corporate personhood is the vehicle that allows "fictional entities" to unload their debts and mistakes on the public. Many corporations have economies the size of governments. They create anti-democratic policies to help them centralize other people's labor and profit under "their" control. Their personhood was established in the most reckless form of "Judicial Activism." It was a slap in the face of the "original intent" of the 14th amendment.

Labor is the capital in your "Capitalism." Social needs are political. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING! It's hurting local communities by strengthening the forces of corporate government.

We will respond to no further emails from this address. All further emails will be addressed through Portland Independent Media.

elite rule 04.Jan.2006 18:48


Once again, the problem with CPI and other capital "L" Libertarians is that they have NO PROBLEM with elite rule, because they have no ability to acknowledge that elite rule is the byproduct of capitalism.

For people who see it as THE problem, government tyranny is just another symptom, not of "majority rule," but of elite rule. It might be possible for "tyranny of the majority" to occur someday, under the right circumstances, but those circumstances haven't presented themselves in this country historically. If they did, we would need to change our analysis and our emphasis. Perhaps then something like Libertarianism would make sense. But right now, Libertarianism is just another tool to help reinforce the tyranny of elite rule.

Right now, government exists, and is not going to instantaneously disappear. So it's an important priority for those of us who reject elite rule to also reject any policies that accelerate it. And obviously that includes policies that further reduce taxes on the wealthy, regulations on business to protect the public interest, or spending on social programs. Libertarians, on the other hand, always applaud such policies, since "government" is always the big enemy for them, and they make absolutely no acknowledgement of the existence of class society and class conflict.

Black Bloc has made a horrible mistake 08.Jan.2006 15:46

Angela Eckhardt angela@wallowa.us

To  anti-imperialist@yahoo.com / Pashoo. This is Angela Eckhardt again. I see my initial response was finally shared -- a full week after I sent it so that it looked like I didn't respond to the previous comments.

I understand many activists want a local enemy to go after, but life isn't that simple. The easy target is often the wrong one. Portland's Black Bloc is falling right into the hands of the enemies to freedom by pursuing these tactics and that is by design.

I'm sure people are aware of the term "divide and conquer." We are all victims of that strategy. Hopefully through respectful dialogue we can develop an anti-authoritarian alliance that is strong enough to combat the very serious threats to liberty that we all face.

What's ridiculous is that I'm sitting here listening to System of a Down with a giant circle A painted on my wall. I was taught by life-long freedom fighters at Cascade Policy Institute. I began as an intern at Cascade after graduating from Reed College in '98. I worked there until Fall 2002, when my husband Jay and I moved to NE Oregon to start a family and reallign our lives to become more effective freedom fighters. We spent most of the next year in a one-room, off-grid cabin, learning self-sufficiency skills and pursuing independent studies. We started Freedom Solutions NW (www.freedomsolutionsnw.org) to develop non-political / non-governmental ways to advance freedom, like Freedom Libraries, biodiesel workshops and other projects. After working as a news reporter and opinion columnist for our local paper, the Wallowa County Chieftain, I returned to work for Cascade in July of 2005 -- this time as a telecommuting independent contractor (I now represent myself). I also write a column called "My Free Country" for the small acreage page of Capital Press (Western agriculture newspaper) and I write for the new libertarian NW Meridian. Jay and I are both anarchists and outspoken advocates for an anarchist society (meaning, literally, one without rulers).

The reason I said Independence Day is my favorite holiday in the column cited above is because of what the day represents: a people throwing off an oppressive government. Did you even read it? "Independence Day still holds a degree of sadness for me. Each year I greet the anniversary in celebration of its spirit, yet in mourning of its outcome. Our government no longer derives just power from the consent of the governed. ... Yes, we have the right to vote. But what good is a choice if it's between two wrongs? ... So where does that leave us? It leaves us with an American people who sincerely believe in freedom, and a federal government that sincerely wants control over us and everyone else on the planet. It leaves me on a continuing quest to show how most of our troubles would solve themselves if we allowed freedom to work. ... I'll share my own vision with you: I hope this is a freer place with each passing Independence Day. I'd like to see a business in every home and a farmer's market in every town; community gardens; biodiesel labs and profitable oil crops; apprenticeships and mentorships; strong families; proud people, willing and able to defend themselves; and local control over our land and lives." Why didn't you mention that? Taking my words out of context is a classic provocateur tactic of the government.

Speaking of which, Pashoo, why are you so resistant to the idea that agent provocateurs played a role in Seattle? Isn't the existence of conspiracies a fundamental tenant of your movement? A conspiracy is simply two or more people planning to act in secret and in concert. We know conspiracies exist. We also know that the human race is not entirely benevolent so why would anyone believe that the elite class is somehow entirely populated by angels who wouldn't use their influence to maintain and expand their position. Isn't that how many of the elite got that way? It only takes a few psychos flexing their muscles to wind up with a plot like global government -- or a subplot like undermining a protest movement. People's widespread disbelief of conspiracy is what allows these psychos to operate, hiding right in plain sight.

Of course most of the protestors weren't in on it. That's how the provocateur works. But look at the results: the First Amendment was entirely suspended for the first time in modern America, setting a devestating precedent. Americans are now terrified of those who call themselves anarchists, running to the government to protect them from such "terrorists." The philosophy of anarchism has become synonomous with destruction in most Americans' minds now, rather than freedom. Whose goals did that serve???

The tactic of the Black Bloc is one of protection -- to draw police away from protestors that are being attacked. It is not a tactic of senseless violence. You can't claim the goal of drawing out the police state so it is visible. The way to do that is to remain peaceful and stand firm during the protest; then when the police attack it shows the public that lawful peaceful protest will be met with force in the United States. You don't run around acting like a bunch of destructive children, giving police an excuse to use force. Seattle is the worse off for it. The police state has tightened its grip in Seattle and it will never be as free as it was before that action.

And now in Portland, you have the advocates for no government attacking the advocates for as little government as possible? Leave the Democrats and Republicans alone and go after big money libertarians?! You have to be amazingly ignorant or intentionally divisive. Big money interests generally don't support libertarian philosophy because they want to keep the playing fields stacked in their favor. That's why the LP isn't dripping in cash and that's why Cascade has a small office and a modest budget. With more support CPI would be far more capable to reach beyond Oregon policy and tackle issues of global economics.

The people who do support Cascade Policy Institute have been reading about the true philosophy of freedom for more than a decade in Cascade publications. When the mainstream media tries to discount Cascade as "right wing conservatives," or when local provocateurs trot out the "hard right" label, Cascade supporters know better. A common saying at CPI is that ideas have consequences, meaning that it is the ideas that are powerful. The political manifestations of such ideas are easily corrupted, so Cascade focuses on philosophy and principles first. Those who don't actually believe in freedom don't go deep into the philosophy because it is so powerful, infectious, like a virus.

Orwell warned of tyrants who use the terminology of freedom. Just because Bush claims to advance freedom by invading and occupying another country on false pretenses for personal profit doesn't mean there is a problem with freedom; it means there is a problem with the liar. Just because some people use "free trade" terminology opportunistically doesn't mean there is a problem with free trade; it means there is a problem with the liars -- and it doesn't mean everyone who uses the terminology is a liar. The WTO was formed barely a decade ago to lend an air of legitimacy to the global loan sharks, the World Bank and the IMF. It talked a good talk and many genuine believers in freedom bought it.

The World Bank and IMF offer huge, short-term loans to poor countries with the promise that they can improve their infrustructure and compete in the world market. Predictably, the cash isn't enough to overcome years of imperialist oppression or contemporary corrupt (often U.S.-instituted) governments. As the Cato study on soverign bankruptcy points out, countries of special geopolitical or military concern get their histories taken into consideration and their debts forgiven (Israel, Germany, Egypt, Poland); other countries must wait decades for such treatment and by then it is too late. They must accept outside rule by the global economic governing body, the WTO, which cares only that wealthy countries are allowed to sell their goods and access labor in poor countries.

If the WTO cares so much for free markets, let's call the bluff. Advance freedom at home and it will spread. For example, remove the regulations that effectively prohibit American farmers from directly accessing restaurant and grocery store sales. If we can buy our neighbors' meat and dairy at the grocery store, we can boycott predatory corporations that engage in product dumping or product poisoning. That's the way to deal with thugs -- education and the freedom to act.

Our understanding of problems needs to be allowed to develop as information comes to light. The libertarian Cato Institute has been slamming the World Bank and IMF since before some of you were born, and you demonize them for failing to recognize the deception of the WTO back in 2000. Don't you care about the powerful voice of resistance and common sense that they provide from the belly of the beast in this age of terror?

Others have made their share of mistakes, too, like the mainstream environmentalist movement, which has embraced government instead of freedom at every turn. The focus has been on regulating and prohibiting instead of upholding property rights (pollution violates basic nuissance and trespass laws!) and removing restrictions (e.g., end the ban on industrial hemp cultivation). Even as biodiesel gains ground, the focus on subsidies and use mandates will translate to an industry based on the petroleum model, with massive corporate processors and retailers, and farmers being lucky to get what the processors give them. Naturally, farmers won't plant enough crops if they can't profit directly, so biodiesel will never take off like it should. Instead, the way to promote biodiesel is to end the $25,000 daily fines imposed on those who would dare to sell this environmentally friendly fuel without registering with and reporting to the EPA and paying $2,500 to the National Biodiesel Board. Jay and I would already be selling biodiesel in Wallowa County if it weren't for this government roadblock, and many other cash-strapped farmers would also have already seized the opportunity to produce their own fuel and sell the excess to cover their costs.

People who want to improve public transit fail to recognize that auto ownership is empowering. Go ask the folks from New Orleans what a good idea it is to rely on public transit. People with cars got out; people without cars were trapped. Enjoy your MAX ride to the sunken internment camp at PGE Park. Portland has pumped billions of dollars into a hugely wasteful light rail / street car system that is only designed to serve a tiny fraction of the population (buses serve the transit dependent because they are flexible and can serve far more locations with a much higher capacity). Want a simple solution? End prohibitions on private transit. Set up a website to facilitate self-regulated carpooling and paid transport along the lines of San Francisco's slugs (people who need rides across the Bay Bridge wait at a designated spot and get picked up by drivers that need another body to use the carpool lane and pay reduced tolls). The government can't do such a thing because of the liability -- freedom entails too great a risk for the government, but it's the only real solution.

Those who want to improve education fail to recognize that the solution isn't to pour more money into the abyss. The solution is to end compulsory government schooling. Why do you think the American public acts brainwashed? Read the Underground History of American Education at www.johntaylorgatto.com. Parents can be trusted with their children's education. The government cannot be trusted. Most teachers are well-intentioned, but the system is fatally flawed.

It can be hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys who are using the same terminology of freedom. You can use drug policy as a very effective way to distinguish between authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. Would Bush ever claim that an individual has the right to do whatever he wants with his own body? No, but you can read that definition of individual rights in the latest Cascade Update. If you didn't know that Cascade Policy Institute has stood up to the War on Drugs you weren't paying attention.

Literally defined, a free market has no regulations, no laws that could impact trade, zero taxes, zero subsidies (yes, Cascade attacks corporate welfare and farm subsidies) and no corporate personhood (ask my editor at the Northwest Meridian - corporate personhood is on my research agenda). A truly free market is the worst nightmare of any government and of many corporations, which regularly use the power of government to block competitors and avoid liability. But real free trade is an absolute requirement for a truly free society. Left to our own devices, humans naturally engage in trade. It takes a ruling power to stop two people from coming together to exchange goods for their mutual benefit. The free flow of goods is a fundamental aspect of a functional anarchist society because it is an absolutely decentralized decision-making process that allows everyone to participate at some level and supports the growth of what is valued and the marginalization of what is not.

The fact that some corporations have grown unnaturally large and unethical by using the tool of government is a very legitimate concern, but the solution to this government-created problem is not more government. By its very nature, the political system is rigged against freedom. The solution is education and the freedom to act.

To draw on the Noam Chomsky quote above, so long as we stay in the cage of government, that tiger outside will keep feeding on us and getting bigger. We have to get out of our cage in order to fight it. Fear drives the desire to keep the cage, and it is a self-fullfilling prophecy because conditions always deteriorate under tyranny. Remember from Dune "Fear is the mindkiller" and from Star Wars "The fear of loss is the path to the dark side." Only the fearless will be free. Revolutionaries should shun any spokesperson that advocates for a larger cage.

Democratic planning is as much a false promise for freedom as was communism. We should never "contract out" our individual decision-making capacities to others and we should never accept the decisions of others imposed upon our persons. It just doesn't work. (See Freedom v. Force in the 12/29/005 NW Meridian, available for free download at nwmeridian.com).

I wonder, Pashoo, what it was at my website www.freedomsolutionsnw.org that made you attack me a second time? Was it "Rising above the left-right paradigm?" or "ADD: The Disorder that Wasn't or Psychiatry for Social Control" or "Just Say Know: Truth in Drug Education?" Did you object to my Capital Press column that took on Monsanto (winning myself harassment from the director of the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association) or my columns on hemp and biodiesel?

You want to silence me? You spit on the people that taught me and those that support me?! Members of Portland's Black Bloc are blindly waving a Katana in the dark and slashing those nearest, even the most outspoken proponents of freedom.

Hitting Cascade's office on a Saturday when you thought no one would be there, and sending the press release on Christmas Day when you thought no one could respond, was cowardly. I want to meet face to face. I want to stand in the room when you show the Videos of the Resistance attack on Cascade. I want you all to look me in the eyes then. I'll bring my copy of "Police State II: The Takeover" (from prisonplanet.com) with evidence that the Black Bloc was being led by the enemies of freedom in Seattle (hear about how the "anarchists" defecated in Wah Lui's building and then how they were moved into low-income, city-financed housing, avoiding arrest while legitimate protestors were shipped to FEMA camps). We can follow with the documentary "Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties" that describes the infiltration of anti-war groups and the provocateurs who encourage violence with the secret goal of undermining the cause. Find it at Netflix. If you are the real deal, let's meet. We hold no malice toward anyone who is frustrated with what's going on in the world today. We're pretty pissed about being attacked and defend ourselves -- vehemently -- as anyone should.

It's easy to call yourself an anti-imperialist, Pashoo, but what are you for? If you are for freedom, why would you blindly attack? Negatives are easy to claim. 95 percent of the planet would claim to be anti-imperialists or pro-democracy or any number of catch phrases. It sounds to me like someone handed you a pamphlet at an FBI briefing and said, "Here's the terminology of the resistance, go spew it." The obvious spelling mistakes in the press release show how little they think of the intelligence of protestors. True freedom fighters don't sound like broken records. True freedom fighters know there is no panacea, that the future of liberty is in peril and that solutions are difficult.

I am not calling all Portland protestors bogus. I'm saying that protestors are legitimately frustrated and are being used. "Young, dumb and full of cum." It's time to grow up. Learn some respect. The only possible outcome of such ill-targeted violence is the marginalization of your cause and the empowerment of government.

Learn who the real enemies are, and who they aren't. My husband spent years of his life imprisoned because of the policies of this regime. He's been illegally picked up and interrogated by federal agents since 9/11, told that he was a potential terrorist and that we would remain under surveillance. We live in fear of being "disappeared" because of our ideas. If we're the minions of the WTO then why would this be happening to us?

You run through the streets of Portland, wearing masks and lashing out at your neighbors. We wear no masks. We fear for our lives, but we stand firm on freedom.

I encourage anyone who's reading this to keep your head and don't turn on your neighbors who might also have been used as tools. We're going to need relative unity to weather the coming storms. We have to be willing to talk, not vandalize each others' headquarters. And it's not just libertarians and anarchists I'm talking about here. We need to smash the left-right divide, drop the liberal/conservative terminology and overcome rural/urban barriers. Stop trying to dictate the lives of rural people from a point of ignorance in the city and stop trying to herd people into cities. For the love of freedom, don't buy into gun control!

The Freedom Solution is to be proactive and beyond reproach. Real homeland security comes from a strong, armed public that embodies a passion for freedom and respect for human life.

So Pashoo, what are you? Irresponsibly stupid or intentionally misleading? Show your face.

Box 94, Lostine, OR 97857

hey Angela 09.Jan.2006 15:36


Try this syllogism out
(read the "=>" here as "implies" "leads to" or "presupposes":

Capitalism => maximizing profit
profit => making more money
money => wealth
wealth => power
limitless disparities in wealth => limitless power
power corrupts
absolute power corrupts absolutely


Oh that's rich... 10.Jan.2006 21:10


"Real Freedom Fighters" aren't wealthy Reed College brats!

If anything at all, mispellings should lend credibility to a person's history. Try living without your precious trustfund sweetheart and then see what your precious spelling means to you. Oh and you certainly won't win any hearts and minds here by bad mouthing(especially calling them pigz) Seattle's most talented street fighters either. Your fat mouthing will get you no where.

Divided, we're conquered 12.Jan.2006 21:28

Angela Eckhardt fighton@freedomsolutionsnw.org

Alas, worker, I have no trust fund. Just debt, many jobs, kids, etc. So I can't respond to your posts in as timely a fashion as I'd like. I spent the past couple days rewriting past columns of mine on hemp and biodiesel for republishing. I still believe wholeheartedly that most protestors would not want me silenced if they actually knew what I was saying.

Spelling errors really have no place in this discussion. I'm an editor and they get passed me. My concern is that there is an agent provocateur at work here that is leading people in senseless, violent attacks on would-be allies. If Pashoo is not a fed, my sincere apologies. But there are agent provocateurs at work throughout the country right now, and they are probably working double-time in Portland. Watch "Unconstitutional: The War on our Civil Liberties" (www.unconstitutionalthemovie.com or netflix) before you dismiss the truth.

And don't put words in my mouth. I never called all Seattle protestors pigz. I specifically said I was not calling all protestors bogus. One provocateur to every thousand protestors is more than enough.

On my end, a lot of very good people are justifiably angry at what I think are probably also a lot of other very good people (you, plural). If we can't come together we are all lost.

capitalism = free exchange of goods/services for mutual benefit
capitalism + government = wild opportunities for abuse, unnatural profits and power
no capitalism = no freedom to exchange goods /services = tyranny + poverty

P.S. - worker, our hands are dirty.

question of strategy 18.Jan.2006 20:56

vouch for pashoo- not a fed

there's no reason for you to trust me, but i know for sure that this was not an action led by an infiltrator or a divisive instigator. pashoo's spelling might not be the best, but s/he's got the integrity to think for themself. this was an action that was suprisingly collective, even in comparison to most activist activities. You can attribute things where you'd like- but I'd suggest looking at the ACTUAL state repression that is going on against activists right now and finding the patterns. Because paranoia is a step behind (aka all your info is from 1999) and awareness is a step ahead.

until you address these questions, no amount of unity rhetoric will get past the basic fact that we may be working towards different ends.

1) If you are for ideal free trade in a non-corporate environment, why is ENDING CORPORATE PERSONHOOD not your first goal? I recognize that you list it as an interest, but there is a question of strategy here. If you were to end corporate taxes and any/all methods the government uses to prop up communities, and at the same time unleash corporations from all government regulation, LOCAL COMMUNITIES (INCLUDING SMALL BUSINESS) WOULD BE IMPOVERISHED AND ENSLAVED DUE TO THE BRUTE STRENGTH AND FIREPOWER OF CORPORATIONS. Look at "free trade zones" all over the world where these conditions exist. Honestly, I'd be with you if your goal was to dismantle corporations and governmental control as well. Yet your website is overwhelmingly adopting the rhetoric of current BIG BUSINESS interests in ending regulation, and not one iota of the thinktank's effort seems to be going into ending corporate personhood, the key to the imperialist power of both current big government and big business.

2) If you are an anarchist, how can you believe in pacifism? If you believe the state must be dismantled, how can you rely on the conscience of the state to solve your problems for you?

3) If you are an anarchist, how can you consider the action taken as a violent or threatening action, as you have inferred? No living thing was harmed in the making of the action, and no property was harmed either (though if you believe property is theft as most anarchists do, this wouldn't exactly constitute violence)...the man in the office seemed scared by us, but I fugured that was just because most people don't have the guts to take the conversation back to the people who are selling it.

4) If you are a localist, as it seems with your rhetoric and your hobbies, how can you extort the values of global free trade? Do you recognize that the level of complexity of these types of operations will necessitate complex structures that will take on the powers of governance and enforcement of its own interest...the beginning of "big government"?

5) If you are a reed alumni, how can it be you do not have a trustfund? just kidding. I so do not care anymore. but at least admit that you know a whole lotta people with trustfunds, who are doing some f'd up sh*t and so are their parents, but you're really concerned with the fact that we are concerned about corporate globalization and your dicreppancies. Angela, with power comes responsibility. Your thinktank is working at accumulating power, so expect to be held responsible for your ideas and influence.

Glad we can talk now 30.Jan.2006 10:17

Angela Eckhardt angela@wallowa.us

To summarize a very complex answer, I believe the reason many libertarian organizations have not addressed corporate personhood stems from a lack of understanding of the issue. This is made possible by the polarization of our society - that is, information has not been received from people like yourself because those voices are perceived to be anti-business and therefore fundamental disagreements are assumed at the outset. Further, there are so many severe threats to liberty that it can be difficult to step away from one issue to see some of the roots of societal ills. The fact that many organizations based in states focus on state and local issues, rather than federal or international issues complicates the matter. And some might consider corporate personhood simply a politically unwinnable issue. I am speculating on these answers. You'd have to ask libertarian organizations yourself, and I recommend using the phone, email or postal service rather than trying to break down doors. If a group speaks of liberty as much as Cascade does, you might give the benefit of the doubt and set up an appointment to make a presentation on these issues. Though I would not expect any libertarians to give you the time of day after your attacks. You'll have to be very respectful.

I much prefer to speak for myself - one of the reasons self-employment is ideal (remember I work on contract). Corporate personhood topped my list of research priorities as soon as I fully understood it after watching the movie The Corporation this last fall. In all likelihood I (and by proxy Cascade) would already be published on the subject if I weren't taking so much time out to defend myself against Portland's Black Bloc. I like to have a better grasp on solutions to problems before writing on them. And of course, there are other very pressing issues right now that require immediate attention (for example, I've been trying to expose the fact that the Seoul National University proved last March that the Korean dish kimchi cures the avian flu - no massive death toll, forced inoculations or martial law necessary. The fact that the president is busy asserting all powers in perpetuity - "war powers" for an endless war - and the fact that we are entering full-blown World War III are also major problems that require attention.) In other words, corporate personhood is by no means the only major threat we face, but it is a very, very significant one that plays into everything else.

There is nothing free market about corporate personhood. It is a legal lie: that Enron and I are both persons. Except of course, Enron can be immortal, can exist in multiple places at once, can command far greater resources than I, cannot be jailed and cannot be executed. Thus, corporate personhood means that Enron is a supercitizen, with greater powers than a human person and greater protections under the law. Combined with the fact that corporations are required by law to pursue profits first, rather than pursuing the public good as corporation historically were charted by governments to do, makes for a real problem. The fact that individual corporate officers can be held criminally liable with great difficulty does not mean the corporation can be held liable, as many people assume. The supercitizen lives on, and those who act on its behalf believe themselves to be shielded from any consequences of their behavior. Rather than giving governments more power to regulate, I believe corporate personhood should be ended and it might be wise for corporations to specify through contract that its corporate officers assume all liability on the shareholders' behalf. Then certain stocks will plummet amidst a firestorm of lawsuits. Though corporate personhood came into law through a clerical error in the Supreme Court, I have absolutely no faith that such a fundamental change as ending corporate personhood can make it through any political system, but we need to understand the situation nonetheless.

I am familiar with the Kingston Free Trade Zone from the excellent documentary Life and Debt. An uninhabited plot of ground was designated as a foreign factory free-for-all set in an impoverished region. I recommend removing restrictions on a community so that individuals are allowed to trade with their neighbors without restriction - not removing restrictions on an open lot set aside for foreign factories. Like the South Park episode on Wal Mart suggested, corporations can only take over communities if we let them, and without government protections, corporations could not flourish so far beyond what is natural.

I don't know how you failed to catch my stand against gun control and my support for self defense. I am not a pacifist and I certainly do not rely on the conscience of the state for anything but predation. I believe the only true homeland security for any country is a strong, armed populace ready to defend themselves. What I object to was your senseless violence. You attacked people without actually knowing where they stand. You should have tried approaching them with respect and talking first.

I can understand your action as one of desperation, which is why I can forgive it. These are desperate times for human freedom. But let's be clear: you did not present yourselves as peaceful. You presented yourselves as threatening and I do believe there was some damage. But I understand why you do not want your acts considered violent because political violence that is unsanctioned by our government has been redefined as terrorism (a made up word). To call them rebels, guerillas or revolutionaries would stir up too much sympathy.

So to clarify my position, political violence beyond simple self defense is necessary at times to overthrow oppressive governments. Indeed it is a duty that this county was founded on as described in the Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object envinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government...." There must be a critical mass of societal support for such a thing or else actions will backfire and the government's grip on the people will be tightened further.

The modern witch hunt for terrorists centers around those who would target innocent civilians - people who are victims and pawns of the very dictatorial government in question. Such tactics have no place in freedom fighting. And the people who have used such tactics have so many ties to our government that they must be understood in that light. They must be understood as people who are legitimately angry, but who have been trained, funded, protected and shepherded by our CIA.

In any case, property is certainly not theft. Property is anything that can be owned, and if you don't want anyone to claim ownership of you or your prized belongings, you'd better claim ownership yourself. The natives did not have a concept of ownership because they lived in absolute plenty, but they lost everything once that was challenged.

The term anarchist literally means "one without a ruler." Anarchists would like to see societies without rulers (governmental, corporate, religious or otherwise). Unfortunately many socialists misrepresent themselves as anarchists, and that may be where the "property as theft" illogic comes in. As well, many people who have no answers but are simply bent on destruction of the current socioeconomicpolitical structure also misrepresent themselves as anarchists. The socialists and destructionists who are posing as anarchists because it sounds cool are giving real anarchists a very bad name.

I have never described myself as a localist. Isolation opens us to vulnerabilities and leads us to unnecessary battles. I suppose the term "think globally, act locally," can in some ways describe my focus on what Oregonians can do to advance freedom. In terms of my policy focus, I aim to show how basic lost freedoms contribute to severe problems that lead to calls for more government. My specific focus is on rural policy. The Industrial Revolution did not simply overtake the agrarian economy. It did that, but then the agrarian way of life was effectively outlawed. Farmers were prohibited from growing their most valuable crops, like hemp, and they are effectively barred from selling biofuels, meat and dairy. Thus we are all forced to patronize factory farms, petroleum, plastics, pharmaceuticals and other unscrupulous big businesses.

I can only assume by hobbies, you mean my efforts to empower people by teaching them to make their own diesel fuel and heating oil, or the fact that I raise livestock and family guardian dogs to promote self defense. You should not belittle these activities by describing them merely as hobbies. It's insulting. I have no time for hobbies.

Since I am most known for my promotion of biodiesel, I'll address that with reference to the need for complex structures - I honestly don't know what else you could be referring to. The popular approach to promoting biofuels would perpetuate fuel dependency, big business profits and needlessly complex structures by focusing solely on subsidies and use mandates. The only needed step to advance biofuels is to set farmers free to sell them. All production can be done on a small scale. Right now, a person faces $25,000 daily fines for selling biodiesel without government permission - a difficult thing for any small producer to obtain. You should read my response to the Apollo Oregon alternative energy initiative at  http://www.freedomsolutionsnw.org/writings.htm for the full story.

Your assumptions about my finances, my friends and colleagues are all off-base. As one of my husband's grade school teachers used to say, assume makes an ass out of you and me. And I am not an ass. I aim to devolve power to the individual (and secondarily to the local) level.

I had planned to attend tonight's Videos of the Resistance but I caught a cold Saturday while I was at work at our town's general store. I will try to get better and drive over for the indymedia general meeting on Saturday in the hopes of meeting some of you face to face. Anti-authoritarians are hard enough to find these days; we can't afford this in-fighting.

Angela Eckhardt

Getting over your head 03.Feb.2006 12:16


Angela, you are quite intelligent, but you are completely blind on what is happening in the WTO. Your anarchic views are losing value. The main goal of anarchy is to create equality. You keep pounding on issues that are for are side, but can easily be accomplished in fair trade. It's hard to believe how warped you are into the fact that free trade is equality. Free trade is digging ourselves into slavery. It is estimated that poor countries lose 2 billion dollars every day because of fair trade. I believe in trade, but not free trade and here is why:

Free trade destroys all tariffs to make trade cheaper and easier. But what pray tell are these tariffs? Their our rights. They allow countries to pay pennies to their workers so the men on top can get another mansion. It is incredibly hard to believe you are an anarchist, if you do not believe in equality. You seem to fail to understand that free trade is a tactic used by the big men to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Rich countries that are involved in free trade make it a competition to see what country will work for the cheapest. Now, poor countries that say can't compete with another country because the other country sells it's rice cheaper will decrease their working rights in order to keep up with the trade market. Then, the other country who now see's competition will lower their workers rights and wages, and destroy the environment to make their product even cheaper. Then the other country will compete with that country, and it gradually digs these countries into slavery.

How can you be an environmentalist if you support a system that doesnt take the environment in consideration. With your system, big countries will not take consideration to the redwoods and forests, when they are compared to money. If profit can be made off of it, then they'll do it. Free trade is the concept to eliminate all barriers that protect trade. That is endangerd animals, forests, people rights, peoples jobs, all lost so the rich can get richer. If profit is made there is nothing that will hold them back. That is why the anarchists broke windows in 1999, because there wasn't anything stopping them but the people. They could give a fuck if you disagree, but when you fuck with their businesses they shit a brick.

Just because we believe in trade regulations doesn't mean that we do not believe in loosening some trade regulations. With fair trade no one is saying that you can't trade hemp or use biodeisel, they are just saying that their should be some standards on the way you treat the world and the people in order to trade. Sure, this may mean "laws" to you, but isn't equality worth it? I mean we are not jailing them in a cell for life, it is just the incapability of trade until you follow regulations helping the people. In the long run, it creates opportunity, it helps countries get out of extreme poverty, and helps countries back on their feet. It equalizes classes, so the rich don't get richer and the poor don't get poorer, therefor it enables us somewhat to have an equal opportunity of life. So, if anarchism is about destroying class, than why are you all for a system that divides us?

You seem intelligent but you are completely brainwashed by bad metaphors. Free trade does not give opportunity, it destroys it. And don't even talk about how it relieves countries in debt, because it does quite the opposite. Free trade acts like a mob, it very mysterious to see all the countries that do not participate in free trade that sit on a lot of resources often become invaded for "liberty" even though we are after their resources. When a country is in debt, they are screwed, it is entirely like G8 and Africa, even if your people are starving and dying every day, they will not forgive your debt. Why do you think Argentina asked for a loan from Venezuala instead of the WTO? I mean, I thought that Venezuala were dirty communists that attack innocent people at will, or at least the right says they do. So why would Argentina prefer them? WTO doesnt give a shit about you if you have a debt. The purpose of free trade is for profit at any expense. It is putting the dollar or what they want to become the Euro over human lives. I pity you for calling yourself an anarchist, you more represent some sort of Neo-Liberal who uses crude metaphors to persue innocent brain washed do-gooders to do the wrong thing. I'm not sure if your some sort of money grubber, or just plainly ignorant. But please, you act as if fair trade will kill the rain forests or stop the production of hemp, which is a total lie. Fair trade concerns the rights of people, the environment, and the animals, and just plain rights. If it doesn't cross any of these rights, it is fine. The people that are trying to illegalize hemp are the right-wing Neo-cons. They believe in values and won't trust anything that they haven't used before, especially if it's sister is OH NO! Marijuanna. So you are actually fighting to keep hemp illegal by fighting for the right.

Oh ya, I really appreciate your ageist comments. You might be interested to know that this entire article was written by me bEn, a 16 year old activist. And if you dare use that as a rebuttal it will just prove that I have a more compelling arguement. You know, they used to say that blacks didn't have the knowledge of a white man, and belittled their arguements based on the color of their skin, they also did it to women. You are using the same tactic, which is highly looked down upon by anarchists. Shame.

Sorry for some spelling errors 03.Feb.2006 15:39


I noticed I had some spelling errors, and I also meant to say 2 billion dollars lost on free trade not fair trade. Oops.

divide and sit back and watch 23.Feb.2006 18:23


Hey this is great. with a world pursuing profit not happiness there is so much to do. so wadda we do? umm..bicker over the finer point of capitalism vs libertarianism. well see you all down the road. come on can't you see that the focus of your time is caught up discussing retoric and spelling when you all know that this stuff is way down the line. Gee i'd be real worried if i were the WTO watching the infamous black bloc bickering with a libertarian. this is not a game and neither is it wise to sell ourselves short of coming together. that my freinds is frightening to the BIG MONEY gangs and their riechs. they aren't concerned over your politics they're concerned re. your cohesion. get over yourselves and stop wasting your miinds on what you may regrettably look backupon as timewasting . you could discuss all this when the real and imediate threat is passed but hey guys look outside the windows of your politics and see that all these 9-5'rs are frightened and confused. they have no concern re. politics it's war on the lives and liberties of all. that means all. woh gives a rats whether you have trustfund or can spell. really. your suffering like all of us so take responsibility for your feelings and others and go foward not into the side alleys of division.

be good to each other you may be helping one-another soon.
and hey guys.. kicking down the doors of the libertiens that must have taken courage.

just a word from the brits, hope you don't mind it's just that we think that alliance is strength and division is weak.