F.H.A.T.W.A

Vancouver City; guilty of Social Cleansing

Sunday April 19, 2009, the City of Vancouver was put on trial because of it’s disinterest in the well being and it's persecution of the poor and the homeless.
The City of Vancouver is voting bylaws to clean the parks and the streets of the undesirables; the poor and the homeless, to take them out of the public eyes in the city east end,
The City doesn’t want their rich and tourist to look at the indigenous people of that area, so the best way and legal way to do it is to vote new laws to clear all these people from their homes and the streets.
These people are the most vulnerable one in the society we live in, they are already suffering and straggling, some of them have more problems with addiction, they are the first victim of this bad economy with all Social cut.
The City is creating tremendous stress on it’s more vulnerable people, not only by voting new bylaw to kick them out of the streets, but but also by not doing anything against the increasing real estate prices that throw them on the streets.
The number of people on the street grow every day and the city is doing nothing for them, instead of helping them by building more low income housing and more shelters, the City is ticketing them just for being alive and there.
The City doesn’t feel as obligated to the poor people of the east side, as she feel obligated to uphold it’s contractual obligation to the IOC, and the 2010 Olympics.
The people have realized that the Colonial and Capitalist; the government court at what ever level wont give a fair justice to the poor and the homeless, so they realized that only a people court would look at the facts and lesson to the more vulnerable and traumatized and give them a fair trial.
The people court is the only one on the people side, the only one that looked into the people interest.
It was time for the people to come out to voice their dissent and anger.

The new empire

The end of the big war saw the emergence of a new kind of conquerors acting under the American flag. They’re more powerful than republican or democrat; the big corporations.
They have managed to build an empire, the first world empire built mostly without the military or an emperor. For the most part, it’s been built by economics backed by the American military when negotiations fail.
A fairly small group of men ran most of these corporations and through them they ran the American government and practically every other government in the world. They are the equivalent of the empire and they’re in control regardless of who is in power in the white house or congress, they are in power.
This new conquerors identify a third world country with a valuable resources, on behalf of that country, the corporation arrange for a loan from an organization like the world bank. The loan is not given to the country but is instead used by the corporation to build infrastructure in that country, the kind that only benefit the very rich that is in collaboration with the new conqueror but not the poor. The country is left with a huge debt, so huge they can’t repay it. Their only solution is to sell their resource for really cheap to the corporation, which also enslaved the big majority of the country; the poor. They became the new era slave working for nearly nothing while the corporation made all the money. The corporation doesn’t only use the poor as slave, make the riche and the corrupt richer, but the leader become their puppet and use his or her voice on the geopolitical scene for their own benefit.
But a broken financial market induced by a poorly planned war and more people mobilizing around the world against these conquerors will brink this world powerful empire to his knees.

When Existance and Resistance are one

From SubMedia; The Stimulator's Last Fuckin Show

The five Cockrings of Death

When does a man have right to fight without being called a Terrorist.

Terrorist is a powerful word, label placed on violence that can never be accepted in a civilize society.

It uses to be said that one man terrorist is another man freedom fighter.

American have listed dozens of organizations and labelled them as terrorist but 9/11 has changed everything, you’re either with the foreign American policy or you’re a part of the axes of evil, you’re with the terrorists.

9/11 marked a new phase in human history; the US introduced a new doctrine that aimed to eradicate anything it considered terrorism. An ideological world wind swept through the west political institution media think tanks. An attempt by neocon politician to redefine the world; they called it the global war on terror. Word used in order to escalate the conflict beyond simply the perpetrators of 9/11. The war on terror phrase was used to provide a moral basis for a conflict that have only purpose to secure western interest in the East for generations, but how does this war on terror unfold in countries where these western army are seen as the occupation.

There is no global consensus on terrorism; the pro American governments define it, as the deliberate targeting of civilians, excluding bombs dropped on population centers during war times, arguing dishonestly that the killing of civilians is never the intent in war time. For peoples being bombed, it doesn't matter if it was intended or not, action by state actor or not there is something else defined by the west as state terrorism.

Americans decide who is a terrorist and who is freedom fighter; all the government that help in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had their despot and unconstitutional rulers legitimized and turned to heroes by the west. But the resistance that wants to stop the killing, the destruction, the corruption, and the occupation are labelled terrorist.

The world nation can't agree on workable definition, as the right definition should include the terrorism caused by the west, so the difficulty that causes problem to the intellectuals and politicians, the struggle to find and graft a workable definition that won't be restricted to the west definition of terrorism. A definition restricted to the terror against the US but exclude the US terror against others.

Despite the lack of agreement within United Nations or consensus among academics and politicians; it is very easy in the US to tell who is a terrorist, they have the list. After 9/11 several groups and individuals were added to the list, individuals and groups that are heavily scrutinize. Anyone linked to these organizations was investigated, those suspected of providing funds or aids were arrested, most of the time without the necessary proof. Most of them were tortured or even killed without legal proceeding, but not on a western soil, the suspected terrorists were packed and shipped to some allies countries where torture is still a normal practice.

It seemed that terrorism according to the west definition is the only one dictating the world rules, but there is lot of inconsistency, it seems that some terrorist organizations are more accepted than others. Some listed organizations are more useful to the neocons plans than other. They're far from being investigated or persecuted, congress pass resolutions praising this groups and the CIA provide them covered funding. The enemies of my enemies are my friends even if they're on the list.

The US has constructed it first new military doctrine without a clear definition of who is the enemy. The west seems locked in a conflict based on a borderless, timeless, and unsuccessful war on terror.

Goverment of Occupation.

 

“”If your homeland was invaded by aliens who cut down the forests, poisoned the water and air, and contaminated the food supply, would you resist?”.