blessed britons

I accuse Shell and Chevron of practising racism against the Ogoni people because they do in Ogoni what they do not do in other parts of the world where they prospect for oil. I accuse the oil companies of encouraging genocide against the Ogoni people... The profits from oil come to Britain because it is their technology that is keeping Nigerian oil going. So they have a moral responsibility to intervene... My mission has been to inform the West of the truth of what is happening in Nigeria, which has been hidden from them. I believe if people knew they’d do something about it and stop this robbery and murder that is going on in broad daylight.

— Ken Saro-Wiwa

mad world

In 2004 rail unions commissioned the labour movement thinktank Catalyst to investigate the financial structure and performance of the railway industry post-privatisation. One report concluded that receipts from fares increased from £2.94 billion to £4.39 billion in 2003. In the same year train-operating companies also received £1.2 billion in public subsidy.

— Unjum Mirza

Public transport: how to get back on track

chomsky

'nato would not move to the east'

Submitted by antarchi on September 14, 2008 - 13:23.

As the USSR collapsed, Mikhail Gorbachev made a concession that was astonishing in the light of recent history and strategic realities: he agreed to allow a united Germany to join a hostile military alliance. This “stunning concession” was hailed by Western media, NATO, and President Bush I, who called it a demonstration of “statesmanship ... in the best interests of all countries of Europe, including the Soviet Union.”

an entirely predictable reaction

Submitted by antarchi on March 22, 2008 - 22:55.

On March 27, US-NATO Commanding General Wesley Clark announced that it was 'entirely predictable' that Serb terror and violence would intensify after the NATO bombing. Shortly after, Clark reported again that he was not surprised by the sharp escalation of Serb terror after the bombing: 'the military authorities fully anticipated the vicious approach that Milosevic would adopt, as well as the terrible efficiency with which he would carry it out'.

persuasion, education and trenches

Submitted by antarchi on May 4, 2007 - 14:58.

I don't try to persuade people, at least not consciously. Maybe I do. If so, its a mistake. The right way to do things is not to try to persuade people you're right, but to challenge them to think it through for themselves. Noam Chomsky
Hard for an 'educator' to accept... but he is probably right. You never persuade people by trying to persuade them. If they already want to believe it, they will, without any arguments. If they don't want to or are neutral, trying to persuade them will only entrench them even more firmly in any other trench around the world, but not the one you've specially dug for them.
'How can X think that s/he can control which trench I sit in?'
'I will show X (or myself?) that only I select my own trench'
But this has been pointed out by millions before... In order to persuade an unwilling child to do something, show them you don't care whether they do it or not. Or better still: show them you WANT them to do what they really want to do. And then they're more likely to want to do what they didn't want to do (and you did).

efficient tools

Submitted by antarchi on December 24, 2007 - 01:45.

One of the features of contemporary economic systems is what's called flexibility in labour markets. That's considered a wonderful thing. Labour markets are supposed to be flexible. It's a fancy way of saying you don't know when you go to sleep at night whether you have a job tomorrow morning. And that contributes to efficiency. Anybody who's taken an economics course understands that you get more efficiency if people have no security. They don't know what's going to happen to them tomorrow. And then you can move them around, it's just like a tool.

If you had to worry about whether the tool was going to be happy it would be inefficient. If the tool can be treated just like a piece of metal you use if if you want, you throw it away if you don't want it...

excising thought at source

Submitted by antarchi on September 9, 2007 - 01:58.

Those who rule by violence tend to be 'behaviourist' in their outlook. What people may think is not terribly important; what counts is what they do. They must obey, and this obedience is secured by force.... Democratic systems are quite different. It is necessary to control not only what people do, but also what they think. Since the state lacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force, thought can lead to action, and therefore the threat to order must be excised at the source. It is necessary to establish a framework for possible thought that is constrained wthin the principles of the state religion. These need not be asserted; it is better that they be presupposed, as the unstated framework for thinkable thought.

antarchy

Submitted by antarchi on August 31, 2007 - 16:27.

There are no set anarchist principles, no libertarian creed to which we must all swear allegiance. Anarchism – at least as I understand it – is a movement that tries to identify organisations exerting authority and domination, to ask them to justify their actions and, if they are unable to do so, as often happens, to try to supersede them.