Thursday, June 30, 2005

A Performance Poetry Handbook by the Antipoet

has not been written...

Friday, June 24, 2005

Perth RADIO INDY 22jun05 RTRFM 92.1- Twot, Good Feet and the Softening

MP3 Audio Files of the Show here:

1. Intro and a chat with Bazra from TWOT magazine... [BS News Included!] 14 mins 5.1Mb.

2. PEACE WALKERS Return - Chat with kt 10mins 3.5Mb. PEACE WALKERS Return – "kt" talks about her experiences on last weeks Walk Against Wargames from Lancelin to Fremantle.

3. Aboriginal Sovereignty Tour 2006 - From the newswire... 6mins : 2.2Mb

4.Pete from RRAN - The Softening/Deceit of Refugee Policy in Australia - 13mins 4.5Mb.

5. More Chat about TWOT MAG, a poem from bazra - and we're, Outta Here... 7.5mins 2.6Mb

Click to listen or Right Click to save the Mp3.

More Info:

And for shitlodes of Radical media:

Thanks also to the BS News. Pinched from Melbourne Indymedia:

Tracks we played: G8RIOT!
Mr Manage - Riot - South London's most political Hip Hoppers Mister Manage and the Suicide Farm performed on stage in Aldgate East in the Squad Rave against the G8 summit in Scotland. Check out their anti G8 Summit track, free to download:

And some VERY mad Queen Remix Job. Amazing. No Idea where its from - sounds like Spanish Hip Hop Anarchism!

What else?

email us...

Sunday, June 19, 2005

What's wrong with majority voting?

i should write more about this myself, but why bother when theres this:

What's wrong with majority voting?

Many of us have been brought up in a culture which believes that the western-style system with one-person-one-vote and elected leaders is the supreme form of democracy.

Yet in the very nations which shout loudest about the virtues of democracy, many people don't even bother voting anymore, because they feel that it doesn't make any difference to their lives.

When people vote for an executive they also hand over their power to make decisions and to effect change. This goes hand in hand with creating a majority and a minority, with the minority often feeling deeply unhappy with the outcome.

It is true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to be taken in a minimum amount of time, however there is nothing to say that this decision will be a wise one or morally acceptable.

After all the majority of colonial Americans supported the 'right' to hold slaves. People in a majority rule system don't need to listen to the dissenting minority, or take their opinion seriously because they can simply outvote them. Majority rule systems say that the majority is infallible and they have nothing to learn from the minority.

This creates a situation where there are winners and losers and promotes an aggressive culture and conflict, and lends itself to steam rolling an idea over a minority that dissents with the majority opinion.

The will of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the minority expected to accept and carry out the decision, even if against their most deeply held convictions and principles.

A vivid example is the imprisonment of conscientious objectors against military service in democratic countries such as Germany.

Read on...

- And of course the jailing of Asylum Seekers in Australia... People argue that this cruel treatment of refugees is fine as long as the "majority" vote for it...

Friday, June 17, 2005

What is consensus?

People often ask me about Consensus decision-making process...
I just found a decent definition here...

Me: To my mind the most important element of this model is the idea of a COMMON GOAL. When the common/unified objective behind the group is compromised in any way, the difficulty of the consensus model is proven. In other words if we dont agree on the original reasons for forming the collective in the first place, then all is ostensibly lost at the foundation. There MUST be a DEFINED objective from the outset. We use the model for decision-making at Perth Indymedia.

What is consensus?

Consensus is a decision-making process that works creatively to include all persons making the decision. Instead of simply voting for an item, and having the majority of the group getting their way, the group is committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with. This ensures that everyone's opinions, ideas and reservations are taken into account. But consensus is more than just a compromise. It is a process that can result in surprising and creative solutions - often better than the original suggestions.

Consensus can work in all types of settings: small groups of activists, local communities, businesses, even whole nations and territories. The Zapatista movement in lower Mexico (Oaxaca and Chiapas) answers to a public control called "la consulta". This group - comprised of all men, women and children age 12 and over - meets in local meetings where discussion is held and all the members make the final decision.

Within a small group of up to 20 people consensus tends to be more simple, as everyone can get to know each other and reach a mutual understanding of backgrounds, values and viewpoints. For larger groups different processes have been developed, such as splitting into smaller units for discussion and decision-making with constant exchange and feedback between the different units. Our briefing Consensus In Large Groups has more examples and ideas for reaching consensus with hundreds and even thousands of people...

...Many activists working for peace, the environment and social justice regard consensus as essential to their work. They believe that the methods for achieving change need to match their goals and visions of a free, non-violent, egalitarian society. Consensus is also a way of building community, trust, a sense of security and mutual support - important in times of stress and emergency.

In the antimilitarist protests at Greenham Common in the 1980s thousands of women participated in actions and experimented with consensus. Mass actions involving several thousand people have repeatedly been planned and carried out using consensus...


Thursday, June 16, 2005



Q. What are the fundamental differences between anarchism and communism?

A. The role of the State, the role of the revolutionary party and the movement for radical egalitarian change are three of the fundamental differences between anarchism and communism. Communists have blamed the degeneration of �communist� societies into State capitalist societies (the State owns the means of production, distribution and exchange) on individuals within the communist movement. Anarchists see the degeneration of the communist State into State capitalism as a logical consequence of trying to create an egalitarian community by using the State apparatus. Communists believe that a number of transitional States need to be created before the State eventually withers away. Anarchists believe that transitional States create more transitional States and that these circumstances the State will not wither away. Anarchists have always said that the State must be abolished not reformed.

Anarchists don�t want to seize the State and use the State apparatus to impose their will on the people. They want to see the State replaced by a federation of community and workplace councils. They want to decentralise not centralise power in a central authority. They don�t see themselves as a revolutionary vanguard that will, through the ballot box or through direct action, seize the State apparatus and impose their political program on the people. Anarchists believe that the revolutionary party is a part of the problem, not the solution to the problem. This attitude is reflected in the attitude anarchists have to single issue and social movements. Members of a revolutionary party see those involved in such activities as potential recruits. Anarchists work alongside these people, outlining their ideas trying to democratise the movement, encouraging people to make their own decisions. They want people to stay active in these movements, not abandon them and join this or that political party. Although anarchist groups may belong to larger federations, their primary role is to promote dissent, encourage people to organise and set up alternatives to current structures and institutions so people can build the nucleus of the new society in the ashes of the old.

Hierarchy plays a central role in the communist movement, but a minimal role in the anarchist movement. Although some anarchists may, because of their past experiences or expertises, assume leadership roles, their position in the movement is dependant on other people approving that role. They can at any time lose the influence they have in that movement. In a revolutionary party, the hierarchical nature of the organisation puts people in positions of real authority. The decisions they make are difficult to challenge because power in those organisations resides in those who exercise a leadership role.

The differences between anarchists and communists are real. Tens of thousands of anarchists have died at the hands of communist parties that believed their organisations reflected the will of the people and used the State apparatus to impose their political and ideological program on tens of million of people. The presence of a movement that spoke about libertarian communism and that attempted to transfer power from the State to the Soviet (council), posed a direct threat to a communist movement that supported the central role of the State in revolutionary politics. - Joseph TOSCANO June 2005

Monday, June 06, 2005

The Nuclear Industry Spin Cycle Demands Yellowcake! Yellowcake!

With the heady waft of nuclear dollars in the dusty Australian air, the recent $9 billion takeover of WMC by BHP is no coincidence. The chairman of BHP Billiton confirmed at its February AGM that it was interested in developing nuclear fuel.

And within a month, BHP had announced the takeover bid for WMC, the owner of the world's largest uranium resource, the Olympic Dam project in South Australia.

Now it owns most of WMC and wants the rest. Look Out!

Unless the anti-Nuclear Lobby stands tall on this issue there is little doubt mainstream Australia will fall for the Nuclear spin...

According to nuclear industry pundits, the global resurgence in nuclear reactor construction has driven uranium prices to new peaks. With around a third of the world's yellowcake at our disposal, Australian uranium producers are indeed the darlings of the global energy market - and Australian leaders are currently trying to secure yellowcake deals in China.

Since its recent $9 billion takeover of WMC Resources, BHP Billiton has started restructuring already, by replacing most of the company's board. BHP has secured more than 76 per cent of WMC shares and says it will continue to chase 100 per cent ownership.

What are our beloved pollies saying? They want to talk about local Nuclear energy issues.

With John Howard's election in 1996, there has been a big push under the surface to expand Australia's uranium mining and other nuclear activities, regardless of the well documented truths of radioactive industries bothe here and overseas. So we can presume where he stands at least.

With the ubiquitous "climate change" looming, and "peak oil" on the horizon, NSW Premier Bob Carr has called for a necessary "debate" on the issue. And he seems to be pushing for an interim nuclear energy future for Australia, if not for his own state - which is home to the Lucas Heights reactor.

At this stage of the "debate", at least WA's er, good-ole Dr Gallop said it was "madness" for Australia to even contemplate going down a nuclear energy route. On the face of it, he is certainly not keen for the ALP to debate the contentious issue. He said to The Australian, "We can always debate things but I don't favour contemplating nuclear power."

"I'm not going to open up that debate here in the West Australian Labor party," he told The Australian. Dr Gallop said Australia had already had a sensible debate and should be wary of the consequences of nuclear power.

"This would lock us into a nuclear fuel cycle in Australia," he said. "We would have to manage the waste and all of the consequences of that and we should be looking at cleaner fuel alternatives rather than going down that route."

Nuclear power was not an option for Victoria either, says Premier Steve Bracks:
"I don't support nuclear energy or the use of uranium to fuel electricity generation in Victoria. We need to find cleaner ways of burning greenhouse gases and to make sure we can reduce greenhouse gases," Mr Bracks said on June 6.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has also ruled out the need to consider such a proposal.

Judging by comments like that, at this stage at least, there will be some difficulty to secure agreement on nuclear energy. But is the debate on Nuclear Energy all there is to it? Not really. Australian nuclear industries can clearly see the executive profit benefits to be had from ripping out more yellowcake. If not for the Australian energy market then at the very least as an export.

Many in the industry want the paradox solved. The paradox that is, of having SO much power under our soil and a massive global market to sell the stuff to - whilst environmentalists harp about global warming.

We havent even looked at the myriad other issues at stake with the nuclear cycle. But I won't go on.

There is much more to be said and written on this issue. It won't go away - not with BHP and the PM hacking away in the background...

Saturday, June 04, 2005

The Jesus myth...

As a reply to comments on Perth Indy...

The Jesus "myth" is perhaps the biggest and most enduring hoax played on humankind over the last 2000 years. The notion of a carpenter/poet from Nazareth rising from the dead, as the only Son of God, is hardly a idea based in scientific reality. Is it?

Furthermore, if you are to value one mythology over another, you only display the typical self-righteous arrogance embedded in most of the "Christians" I've met. They believe they are always far better than me. Yet their hypocrisy is, at times, outstanding.

You may dismiss "Aboriginal mythology" as less useful to your way of thinking, but for the oldest culture on the planet - it worked for them for a long long time...

And to suggest that a man born 2000 years ago had "higher powers" than ordinary folks is pushing the boundaries of reality a little - a lot!

Its cool to believe in stuff. Its cool to think you understand the meaning of the world clearer than Non-Christians, but to thrust an arrogant headset on those who are unwilling to accept such "realities" as a matter of FAITH. Which is really what it boils down to. That your Faith carries you further.

Some would even say that believing in the Jesus Myth means you are actually insane!

And imagine if JC were walkin, talkin, preaching and healing in 2005 - Well, he'd be locked up in a flash and pumped full of Prozac.

Lets at least settle on a "fact" or two: Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. He was crucified around AD30. For around three years he travelled as a preacher and a healer. He was particularly known for telling parables, and he declared the coming of the kingdom of God. He was disliked by the religious establishment of the day and executed by the Roman occupying forces as a danger to the status quo...

Thats the real stuff. The people that wrote the bits of the bible all those years ago have a lot to answer for.

Also, it should also be established that, in the process of determining the Biblical canon, a large number of works were excluded from the New Testament.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

My brief attempt at a deconstruction of Racist mythology in this Perth Indymedia thread:

Willy Willy" said:

1. "The Aborigine tribes came to Australia across the from the Indonesian islands just as the Europeans came here via the sea"

Me: No. This is not the same. Some 50,000 years ago (perhaps longer) the australian continent was indeed uninhabited. This island's Aboriginal Culture is arguably the oldest human culture on the planet.

The original migration was via land bridges - some tens of 1000s of years ago. Whereas Cook and others came here, [a few years ago], to forcibly appropriate this country in the name of an Empire. Indeed, a declaration of "war".

The Aboriginal Nations were stolen by England and in terms of historical context - very recently.

So, this is very different than the original migrators. Don't you think so?

Willy Willy" said:

"They were conquered by the Europeans, just as the many countries in Europe and Britain were themselves conquered through history. Perhaps I could sue the descendants of the vikings for invading the land of my ancestors?"

Me: No. We're talking a total modern disregard for culture and deliberate Genocide. And we're talking less than 200 years ago. Whereas, the "Vikings", and indeed the Romans, invaded England etc in the early centuries. Before the "Enlightenment".

Geographical australian Aboriginal People have only legally been considered people [and not "Fauna"] since the late 1960s. They were explicitly denied any say in the Constitution in 1901. They have been completely denied access to democracy until then. There is a long and bitter scar across our history - which will take years of discussion and amelioration.

But, we're certainly talking COMPLETELY different moments in the history of humanity. Apparently we have been reasonably "civilised" for the last few hundred years - civilised enought to realise there is something wrong with stealing other peoples property. Theres something abhorrent about murdering people for their land and so very recently.

Effectively, "so called" aboriginal rights have only recently been recognised as citizens - within OUR generation. And since the relatively recent Mabo and Wik cases, some recognition of the distortions of a Terra Nullius has been established, that is, it is now officially recognised that there were indeed People here before the Invasion. Yet little has been achieved.

In fact matters are far worse than ever:

June 1 2005: "Kuruma Marthudunera elder Neil Finlay said local people had not benefited from mining in the region. "Our country has been mined for iron ore for 30 years, making billions of dollars worth of profit for Rio Tinto and Robe River and nothing has been done for us - while our people live in poverty at their door and die 20 years before their time."

It seems that, since Britsh Invasion of the late 1700s on these Aboriginal Lands, there has been continuous and deliberate exploitation. These ideas now being discussed as by definition Genocide. And High Courts are looking at such issues in terms of Sovereignty.


We NEED to rcognise this - and not deny it with semantics as you are doing. I could go much further into your post, but I won't. Your argument is typical of the reasons this country's Traditional Owners cannot move forward.

Australia was built on Racist foundations, it has a Racist Constitution and much work is needed to heal the wounds of our disturbing racist past...

Will you help us? OR continue to deny the engrained racist philosophy this country was founded on...

this dedicator recognize

Site Meter