Assimilate This!

The whole problem of assimilation into the status quo is structural in nature and is imposed by the elite special interests who are supported by the legal system that enforces the structural integrity of the prevailing system which increasingly serve an ever shrinking number of super elite.

Take a square frame and pour equally sized marbles into that frame. The result will always be a pyramid. The un-assimilated marbles will be bounced out of the system. Using different marbles or different sized marbles, or a different number of marbles (well you need at least 5) or a different sized square frame will not alter the final result.

Until the shape of the frame itself is changed the result will always be the same, a pyramid.

Changing the frame is a radical (change from the root) and fundamental one, and apparently the only solution. To radically change the shape of the frame the system itself must become increasingly unstable with a lot of marbles bounced out of the system.

The increasing number of bounced marbles has created the recent resurgence of anarchism whose successes are in large part to technological innovation (internet,cell phones, etc) which allows people in different geographical locations to communicate and coordinate disruptive activities.

System instability is accelerating beyond the capacity of traditional power elites to handle, as more and more marbles are bounced out of the system. The result is fourth generation asymmetric warfare.

Welcome to Anarchism Triumphant!

I'm Voting Republican

Barack reality check: Who are you calling a dictator Obama?

In a speech Barack Obama gave in Flint, MI, called "Renewing American Competitiveness" on Jun 16th, 2008 he said;

Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran.

Clearly Barack Obama agreeing with President Bush is calling President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela a dictator. Historical facts indicate otherwise. Chávez won the 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the votes (the largest margin in 40 years). In 2000 Chávez was reelected by 59.76% of the popular votes. Chávez survived a failed coup attempt in 2002 that tried to install the Chamber of Commerce president Pedro Carmona and in 2006 Chávez again won the OAS and Carter Center certification of the national election on December 3, 2006 with 63 percent of the popular vote.

Compare this to the United States 2004 election of George H.W. Bush by only 50.73% percent of the popular vote in a highly controversial election. The only international organization allowed to monitor the election, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Election Observation Mission Final Report said this;

In keeping with its OSCE commitments, the United States invited the OSCE/ODIHR to observe these elections. OSCE observers were granted access to polling stations in a number of states, although sometimes only in specific counties. However, in other states, access was not possible or was limited. This was a result of state law, either because international observers were not included in the statutory categories of persons permitted to be in polling places, or because the lack of reference to international observers in state law was deemed to constitute an obstacle to their presence in polling places. Lack of observer access to the election process, both international and domestic, including at polling station level, is contrary to OSCE commitments, and limited the possibility of the OSCE EOM to comment more fully on the election process.

Instead of pandering to popular ignorance of world affairs and U.S. propaganda by the current administration perhaps Barack Obama should look a bit closer to home if he wants to call someone a dictator.

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap

State Rep. Hermina Morita, D-14th (Hanalei, Anahola, Kapa'a), said the House was emasculating the courts and the rule of law. She said it was appropriate that the vote was taken on Halloween. The bill, she said, "dressed in the facade of the toothless conditions, is still one ugly bill that reeks the horrors of political favors gone awry and should be haunting this Legislature on how cheap we sold the credibility and respectability of this institution and our moral compass." http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS01/711010371

Unchained passion begins at home

"When tyranny is law revolution is order" popped into my head as I witnessed the Hawaii State legislature shamelessly betray themselves, the people, and the environment to corporate/military power. Such a sycophantic rush to bad judgment by the Governor and the legislative majority to put the Superferry above the law makes moot the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling and shreds any lingering delusions that we live under a rule of law.

The saying "when tyranny is law revolution is order" can be traced back to the the 1897 "Handbook of American Constitutional Law" by Campbell Black author of Black's Law Dictionary often cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here is what Black wrote about the right of revolution in his "Handbook of American Constitutional Law."

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION.

8. The right of revolution is the inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their polity, or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions, by force or a general uprising, when the legal and constitutional methods of making such changes have proved inadequate, or are so obstructed as to be unavailable.

This right is a fundamental, natural right of the whole people, not existing in virtue of the constitution, but in spite of it. It belongs to the people as a necessary inference from the freedom and independence of the nation. But revolution is entirely outside the pale of law. "Inter armes silent leges." Circumstances alone can justify a resort to the extreme measure of a revolution. In general, this right may be said to exist when tyranny or a corrupt and vicious government is intrenched in power, so that it cannot be dislodged by legal means; or when the system of government has become intolerable for other causes, and the [Page 11] evils to be expected from a revolutionary rising are not so great as those which must be endured under the existing order of things; when the attempt is reasonably certain to succeed; and when the new order proposed to be introduced will be more satisfactory to the people in general than that which is to be displaced. "Revolution is either a forcible breach of the established constitution or a violation of its principles. Thus, as a rule, revolutions are not matters of right, although they are mighty natural phenomena, which alter public law. Where the powers which are passionately stirred in the people are unchained, and produce a revolutionary eruption, the regular operation of constitutional law is disturbed. In the presence of revolution, law is impotent. It is, indeed, a great task of practical politics to bring back revolutionary movements as soon as possible into the regular channels of constitutional reform. There can be no right of revolution, unless exceptionally; it can only be justified by that necessity which compels a nation to save its existence or to secure its growth where the ways of reform are closed. The constitution is only the external organization of the people, and if, by means of it, the state itself is in danger of perishing, or if vital interests of the public weal are threatened, necessity knows no law."[7]

The Constitution Black points out is not the origin of our freedom but the consequence of our power.

A constitution "is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but the consequence, of personal and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but, is the creature of their power, -- the instrument of their convenience.

Aloha is a two way street. Invited guests are more than welcome, but when we are threatened by a home invasion "necessity knows no law."