The US Department of Defense is the nation’s single largest consumer of fossil fuels. From arms production to the grand machines of war, the military emits more greenhouse gas than any other state institution. War also wrecks natural ecosystems. Ongoing interventions have damaged forests and wetlands across the Middle East. According to CostOfWar.org, Afghanistan has lost 38% of total forested area to illegal logging. This deforestation is associated with warlords who rise to power from the ashes of military campaigns that continually destabilize the region. This plunder eliminates beneficial ecosystem services to surrounding populations and gives rise to further conflict and violence as people are left with depleted resources. Forest loss also reduces the amount of available habitat for a number of species, including avian communities, currently experiencing a precipitous population decline — a dangerous precedent in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

The state organism is continually exalted by those in positions of power as the only legitimate mechanism of social organization. We are told only the state can ensure peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex and ever fragile world. But given the role of the nation-state in the world, as an economic and military power, it is time to acknowledge the organism is a global threat to peace, security, liberty and the environment.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

La guerra non è compatibile con la sostenibilità. Per affrontare seriamente il cambiamento antropogenico occorre la pace.

Gli Stati Uniti sono in uno stato di guerra permanente. Il nuovo attacco dell’amministrazione Obama contro Isis ne è una prova ulteriore. Nessuna novità. Appena un anno fa alti rappresentanti dell’amministrazione dicevano al senato che esiste un “ampio consenso” sulla necessità di estendere le operazioni militari in Medio Oriente. Un altro decennio di guerra, forse due, in “forma illimitata”. E a quel punto gli Stati Uniti sarebbero a metà strada nella guerra al terrore globale. Così si diceva prima che l’Isis diventasse argomento da salotto.

Questo stato di guerra è responsabile del massacro di innocenti, dell’inasprimento del terrore e della distruzione; e tutto mentre si propaganda l’azione sul clima. Una cosa è certa: sul clima lo stato non sta andando a “battere un colpo”.

Il dipartimento americano della difesa è da solo il più grande consumatore nazionale di combustibili fossili. Dalla produzione di armi alle grandi macchine da guerra, le forze armate emettono più gas serra di ogni altra istituzione. Aggiungeteci la distruzione dell’ecosistema naturale portata dalla guerra. Gli attuali interventi hanno danneggiato il patrimonio forestale e lagunare in tutto il Medio Oriente. Secondo CostOfWar.org, l’Afganistan ha perso il 38% delle aree boschive a causa del taglio illegale. Questa deforestazione è legata ai signori della guerra che salgono al potere sulle ceneri delle campagne militari che continuano a destabilizzare la regione. Questo saccheggio elimina quei benefici che l’ecosistema dà alle popolazioni del luogo, generando scarsità di risorse che a sua volta fa nascere ulteriori conflitti e violenze. La riduzione della superficie boschiva, inoltre, restringe l’habitat di un gran numero di specie, compresi i volatili che attualmente subiscono un forte declino; un precedente pericoloso nel mezzo della sesta estinzione di massa.

Chi sta al potere esalta continuamente lo stato come unico sistema in grado di organizzare legittimamente la società. Ci dicono che solo lo stato può assicurare pace e sostenibilità in un mondo sempre più complesso e fragile. Dato il ruolo dello stato nazione come forza economica e militare, è ormai tempo di riconoscere la sua natura di minaccia mondiale alla pace, la sicurezza, la libertà e l’ambiente.

Lo stato non è in grado di agire sul clima. Lo stato nazione funziona come un essere razionale, mira al proprio interesse. Cerca di espandere il proprio potere, per lo più sfruttando le risorse naturali. Esiste un conflitto di interessi all’interno di uno stato: quello che ha più territorio è anche quello che ha più risorse disponibili al consumo. Ecco perché la guerra (che sia militare o economica) rappresenta il benessere dello stato: perché garantisce il monopolio su un territorio, e dunque sulle sue risorse.

Tutto questo mentre da 300 a 400 mila persone marciavano davanti alle Nazioni Unite e in tutto il mondo per chiedere protezione per l’ambiente. Il progresso inizia per strada, ma un vero cambiamento si può avere solo con con un’attività ambientalista quotidiana a livello di vicinato. Questo potere sociale può rendere inservibile lo stato con tutta la sua autorità illegittima. Non limitatevi a darvi una mossa. Marciate sulle ceneri del potere.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

War is incompatible with sustainability. Serious engagement of anthropogenic change demands peace.

The United States is a permanent wartime state. The Obama administration’s new military engagement with ISIS is yet another testament to the fact. This should be no surprise. Just over a year ago senior administration officials told the US Senate there exists a “broad consensus” that military operations in the Middle East are to be extended, in their “limitless form,” for at least another decade, possibly two, before adding the United States has reached only the midpoint in its global war on terror.  This was before ISIS became a topic of dinner table discussion.

This wartime state is responsible for the mass slaughter of innocents, exacerbation of global terror and property destruction — all while advancing anthropogenic climate change. Rest assured, the state will not be “going to bat” on climate.

The US Department of Defense is the nation’s single largest consumer of fossil fuels. From arms production to the grand machines of war, the military emits more greenhouse gas than any other state institution. War also wrecks natural ecosystems. Ongoing interventions have damaged forests and wetlands across the Middle East. According to CostOfWar.org, Afghanistan has lost 38% of total forested area to illegal logging. This deforestation is associated with warlords who rise to power from the ashes of military campaigns that continually destabilize the region. This plunder eliminates beneficial ecosystem services to surrounding populations and gives rise to further conflict and violence as people are left with depleted resources. Forest loss also reduces the amount of available habitat for a number of species, including avian communities, currently experiencing a precipitous population decline — a dangerous precedent in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

The state organism is continually exalted by those in positions of power as the only legitimate mechanism of social organization. We are told only the state can ensure peace and sustainability in an increasingly complex and ever fragile world. But given the role of the nation-state in the world, as an economic and military power, it is time to acknowledge the organism is a global threat to peace, security, liberty and the environment.

States will not act on climate. Nation-states work as rational actors, advancing their own self interests. They seek the expansion their power, largely through the exploitation of natural resources. There is an inherent conflict of interest among states: The state with the most territory has the most resources for consumption. This is why war (be it military or economic) is the health of the state — it provides a monopoly over a territory and thus resources.

All of this, as 300 to 400 thousand people marched outside of the United Nations, and around the globe, to urge environmental protection. Progress starts in the streets, but true change requires everyday neighborhood environmentalism. Social power can render the state, and all of its illegitimate authority, useless. Don’t just step up to the plate. Stand on the ashes of power.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Azione sul Clima: Sulle Ceneri del Potere.

No one should raise the stars and stripes on the 4th. The proper flag to raise on the 4th of July is the black flag of anarchy. It’s far more revolutionary than the military colors of the U.S. government. This is especially true, because of the frequent aggressive military actions engaged in by the American state. The status quo has been statism and militarism for ages. A genuine revolution would overthrow both.

This appropriation of nominally statist holidays is a good way to reach the broader populace. People are more likely to respond to imagery related to what they are familiar with. This is the tactical relevance of reinventing these holidays. It allows the anarchist message to reach a greater number of people. This is important for the purpose of garnering mass support.

In garnering mass support through these means, anarchists are changing the culture from a state reverent one to an anti-state one.  A change in culture is essential for the success of political and economic liberty. The changing of holidays is a crucial part of our struggle against government.  Its help in cultural progress could be immense. It’s a chance not to be passed up.

A related subject pertains to whether we ought to make use of our own unique holidays as well. The answer is a resounding yes. There are anarchist themed holidays like May Day that should be preserved. It’s an integral part of our history as anarchists. The historical is not always worth keeping around, but this celebration is.

The fact that keeping around May Day is worth it raises the question of how we can make it even more anarchistic. We can emphasize the role of government in oppressing the working class. The use of military and police power to break strikes.  We can put an emphasis on how government redistributes wealth upward to a governing class. Let us begin to do this today!

The danger lies in forgetting the evil of imperialism due to a greater inclusion of people participating in imperial violence. A more diverse band of killers for government is still a band of killers for government. Diversity is a useful value, but it isn’t the only value. This is especially true when we’re discussing the subject of militarism. Miliaristic force is among the worst evils known to humankind and remains so even with a greater variety of people involved. It’s imperative not to lose sight of this.

It’s also important not to lose sight of how militarism reinforces the notion of the other. A phenomenon that is especially deadly for marginalized individuals like LGBT people. An example of this is the fear of a Helot uprising in militaristic Sparta. It helped keep militarism going in that society. Homophobia itself is based on a fear of the other. It may not be inherently tied to militarism or empire, but it definitely has that trait in common.

Militarism tends to lead to the demonizing of the other, because it embraces an “us vs them” logic – one nation-group or group against another. It often leads to the total destruction of an enemy. There is no regard for civilian life. The inclusion of gay and lesbian individuals in this practice of “us vs them” war would be ironic. This is due to the status of gays and lesbians as marginalized people in American society.

Let us work towards abolishing homophobia, empire and militarism. A trinity of evils that deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history. We anarchists can lead the way on this issue. It’s time to get started!

Memorial Day is often used by pro-war forces to promote more military action, but it doesn’t have to be that way. It can be a simple remembrance of the victims of war. These said victims can be both fallen soldiers and civilians. It need not be a jingoistic holiday used to justify further militarism.

A related issue is whether one should support the troops or not and what group of troops. Charles Johnson has written the following on this issue in the context of the Iraq War:

1. The things done in the prosecution of the Iraq War are evil.
2. There are some (many) American soldiers who willingly do the things done in the prosecution of the Iraq War.
3. If soldiers willingly do things that are evil, they bear (at least some) moral responsibility for them.
4. You shouldn’t support people who bear (at least some) moral responsibility for doing things that are evil.
5. Therefore, there are some (many) American soldiers you shouldn’t support.

What about supporting the troops in other contexts, where they display different behaviors? That could be permissible, but a libertarian shouldn’t support troops when they are engaged in mass murder.

Is contempt proper in this scenario? Roderick Long writes:

If a basically decent person has been unfairly manipulated into carrying out an unjust policy, despising that person is hardly an appropriate response. But neither is support.

Short of surmising that the vast majority of human beings are psychopaths committed to aggressive violence, we can probably safely hypothesize that the vast majority of troops are basically decent people interested in only defensive force.

It may also be possible to not support all the troops but only particular ones like Chelsea Manning. Kevin Carson writes:

Let’s get something straight. Manning may be a criminal by the standards of the American state. But by all human standards of morality, the government and its functionaries that Manning exposed to the light of day are criminals. And Manning is a hero of freedom for doing it.

Another question pertains to whether we should honor or respect soldiers for defending our society or freedoms. The statement that they have done so or are doing so is merely an assumption until sufficient proof is provided. A lot of U.S. wars have been unjust wars of aggression or imperialism, so I have a hard time swallowing the idea that we owe the troops for protecting our freedoms or genuinely defending us. It can also be dangerous to honor or respect someone, because they perceive themselves as protecting the society you happen to live in. This was no doubt the view of Confederate and German soldiers during World War 2.

The final thing to consider is whether warrior-ship is a virtue or not. The perspective presented here is a bit unsure. On the one hand violence or coercion is awful, but it’s difficult to say that defensive violence is a necessary evil without unjustly indicting the moral character of those involved in using it. One can clearly say that aggressive violence or coercion is an unmitigated evil. Let’s work to put an end to this.

Justin Raimondo discusses the troubling return of nationalism.

Jayel Aheram discusses how Malala Yousafzai is being used as a puppet for imperialism.

Philip Giraldi discusses torture, the Senate, and the CIA.

Conor Friedersdorf discusses how No Place to Hide is a conservative critique of a radical NSA.

Alexander Reid Ross discusses drones over Nigeria.

Ramzy Baroud discusses what the media is not telling us about Yemen.

Peter Lee discusses local nationalism and big bullies.

Andrew Levine discusses the Cold War Obama-style.

Franklin Lamb discusses Palestinian refugees coming from Syria to Lebanon.

Alyssa Rohricht discusses the mantra of the NSA.

Medea Benjamin discusses the promotion resulting from killing a 16 year old via drone.

Jeff Ricketson discusses fractal libertarianism.

Pepe Escobar discusses the pivot to Eurasia.

Roderick Long discusses strong words and large letters.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the FBI, NSA, and reforms.

Shikha Dalmia discusses why Muslim bashing by Bill Mahr is uncool.

Matthew M. Robare discusses Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky speaking together.

J.D. Tuccille discusses the late R.J. Rummel’s work on death from government.

Brian Dohetry discusses Robert Sarvis.

Paul Hein discusses the irrelevance of government.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses why conservatives are doomed.

Lawrence Samuels discusses Mussolini’s place on the left-right political spectrum.

Alex R. Knight III discusses defending the state.

Jacob G. Hornberger and Sheldon Richman present The Libertarian Angle.

Margaret Kimberly discusses the situation in Nigeria.

Wendy Call discusses how the War on Drugs destroys lives.

Eric Margolis discusses the bridge that began the Great War.

Ernst Gruenfeld beats the great Alexander Alekhine.

Ernst Gruenfeld draws with David Janowski