Pátek 25. dubna 2014

An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism

The Guardian,   Čtvrtek 16. září 2010

By liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume, climate catastrophe can be averted without recourse to authoritarianism

James Lovelock British scientist James Lovelock has proposed radical authoritarian measures to combat environmental degradation. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

It is time to acknowledge that mainstream environmentalism has failed to prevent climate catastrophe. Its refusal to call for an immediate consumption reduction has backfired and its demise has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom.

One well-known example of the authoritarian turn in environmentalism is James Lovelock, the first scientist to discover the presence of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Earlier this year he told the Guardian that democracies are incapable of adequately addressing climate change. "I have a feeling," Lovelock said, "that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." His words may be disturbing, but other ecologists have gone much further.

Take for example Pentti Linkola, a Finnish fisherman and ecological philosopher. Whereas Lovelock puts his faith in advanced technology, Linkola proposes a turn to fascistic primitivism. Their only point of agreement is on the need to suspend democracy. Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers. Largely unknown outside of Finland until the first English translation of his work was published last year, Linkola represents environmentalism pushed to its totalitarian extreme. "An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth," he writes concluding several pages later that "discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression" are the only solution.

Linkola has a cunning ability to blend reasonable ecological precepts with shocking authoritarian solutions. His bold political programme includes ending the freedom to procreate, abolishing fossil fuels, revoking all international trade agreements, banning air traffic, demolishing the suburbs, and reforesting parking lots. As for those "most responsible for the present economic growth and competition", Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for "re-education" in eco-gulags: "the sole glimmer of hope," he declares, "lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens."

Environmentalism is currently marketed as a luxury brand for guilty consumers. The prevailing assumption is that a fundamental lifestyle change is unnecessary: being green means paying extra for organic produce and driving a hybrid. The incumbent political regime remains in power and the same corporations provide new "green" goods; the underlying consumerist ideology is unquestioned. This brand of environmentalism only emboldens ecofascists who rightly claim that shopping green can never stop the ecological crisis. And yet, ecofascists are wrong to suggest that the suspension of democracy is the only alternative.

Humanity can avert climate catastrophe without accepting ecological tyranny. However, this will take an immediate, drastic reduction of our consumption. This requires the trust that the majority of people would voluntarily reduce their standard of living once the forces that induce consumerism are overcome.

The future of environmentalism is in liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume. Rampant, earth-destroying consumption is the norm in the west largely because our imaginations are pillaged by any corporation with an advertising budget. From birth, we are assaulted by thousands of commercial messages each day whose single mantra is "buy". Silencing this refrain is the revolutionary alternative to ecological fascism. It is a revolution which is already budding and is marked by three synergetic campaigns: the criminalisation of advertising, the revocation of corporate power and the downshifting of the global economy.

In São Paulo, the seventh largest city in the world, outdoor advertising has been banned. Meanwhile, artists in New York City and Toronto are launching blitzkrieg attacks on billboards, replacing commercials with art. Their efforts have put one visual polluter out of business. Grassroots organisers in the US are pushing for an amendment to the constitution that will end corporate personhood while others are fighting to revive the possibility of death penalties for corporations. The second international conference on degrowth economics met recently in Barcelona. In Ithaca, New York a local, time-based currency is thriving. Buy Nothing Day campaign is celebrated in dozens of nations and now Adbusters is upping the ante with a call for seven days of carnivalesque rebellion against consumerism this November. And, most important of all, across the world everyday people are silently, unceremoniously and intentionally spending less and living more.

Authoritarian environmentalists fail to imagine a world without advertising, so they dream of putting democracy "on hold". In Linkola's dystopian vision, the resources of the state are mobilised to clamp down on individual liberty. But there is no need to suspend democracy if it is returned to the people. Democratic, anti-fascist environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted. Yes, western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be done voluntarily and joyously.

P�evzato z The Guardian

Zobrazeno: 75x

<< K t�matu

Spojené státy mohou zadržovat nejen úložná média


Objevila se opravdu nemilá zpráva. Při cestě do Spojených států amerických zřejmě musíte počítat s tím, že vaše zařízení umožnující uchovávat data mohou být zadržena. Když se tedy federálním agentům nebudete líbit, seberou vám notebook, mobilní telefon, přehrávač anebo další věci, na kterých můžete mít informace.

Zadržení bude probíhat bezdůvodně. V praxi je tedy reálná situace, že se na letišti nebudete dotyčnému pracovníkovi líbit a na časově nespecifikovanou dobu přijdete o svá zařízení. Bohužel informace se zakládá na pravdě a svobodu člověka omezuje velmi. Zdůvodnění je opět velice prosté a tím je obrana proti terorismu. Uklidnění nenaskýtá ani doba zabavení vašeho majetku, ten se sice vrací, ale maximální časová lhůta není dána. Možná to nemůže být horší, ale souvisí s tím i nakládání s osobními údaji.

Dotyčný bezpečnostní úřad může předat informace získaná z vašich zařízení soukromým firmám na překlad anebo dešifrování. Tímto způsobem se tak mohou naprosto lehce dostat buď osobní anebo citlivá data vaší společnosti lidově řečeno ven. Vlastník datového média nemá žádnou možnost obrany. Pokud se tento způsob uvede do praxe, pak si sebou zřejmě do USA nebude moci brát žádná citlivá data, jelikož se jedná o neúnosné riziko. Podle některých zdrojů se zabavení může týkat i tištěných anebo ručně psaných materiálů, například osobního diáře. Zdroje: www.engadget.com a www.eweek.com.

Zdroj: http://www.itbiz.cz/usa-budou-zabavovat

Pátek 3. října 2008

Sobota 24. leden 2009

Here come the thought police

By Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson November 19, 2007

With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain.

Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The historian Henry Steele Commager, denouncing President John Adams' suppression of free speech in the 1790s, argued that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government from dissenters but to provide a legal means for citizens to oppose a government they didn't trust. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence not only proclaimed the right to dissent but declared it a people's duty, under certain conditions, to alter or abolish their government.

In that vein, diverse groups vigorously oppose Ms. Harman's effort to stifle dissent. Unfortunately, the mainstream press and leading presidential candidates remain silent.

Ms. Harman, a California Democrat, thinks it likely that the United States will face a native brand of terrorism in the immediate future and offers a plan to deal with ideologically based violence.

But her plan is a greater danger to us than the threats she fears. Her bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels "homegrown terrorism."

The proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.

Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed "Center of Excellence," which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent.

While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill doesn't criminalize any specific conduct or contain penalties. But the commission's findings will be cited by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who will demand enactment of criminal penalties that further restrict free speech and other civil liberties. Action contrary to the commission's findings will be interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of patriotism at the least.

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates "thought police," it defines "homegrown terrorism" as "planned" or "threatened" use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of "political or social objectives." That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

The bill defines "violent radicalization" as promoting an "extremist belief system." But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical "belief systems" as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.


Úterý˝ 20. listopadu 2007


Pondělí˝ 27. října 2008

USA: Můžeme unášet jakékoli cizince, nejen teroristy
"Spojené státy mají právo unášet cizí státní příslušníky. Stačí, aby byli ve Spojených státech z něčeho obviněni. Podle právníka pracujícího pro americkou vládu o tom rozhodl Nejvyšší soud."

a tohle je perla:
"Tradiční způsob, kdy vláda jedné země požádá o vydání občana jiného státu, je podle Jonese pouze jedním ze zákonných postupů, kterými lze dostat před americký soud člověka, který se nevyskytuje na území USA."

Čtvrtek 6. prosince 2007

(P�idej vlastn� p��lohu k t�matu)

Ochrana proti spamu. Kolik je dvakr�t t�i?

BTC Clicks banner