Category Archives: Uncategorized

Civilization Must Die

CIVILIZATION MUST DIE

By ____ _____*

Civilization as we know it is unsustainable. All the experts agree on that. And just so there’s no confusion as to what “unsustainable” means, here are some examples: (1) Gouges by an iceberg, the Titanic was UNSUSTAINABLE as a sea-going vessel; (2) After being struck by planes, the Twin Towers were UNSUSTAINABLE standing structures; (3) Without gas in their van, the band’s nation-wide tour was UNSUSTAINABLE.

Unsustainable means it can’t keep going; it’s going to end whether we like it or not; it’s doomed. Civilization as we know it is going down. Built on a process of chewing up the natural world and expanding a global human ghetto, its days are numbered. It’s unsustainable. It can’t keep going.

Personally, I don’t find that to be a bad thing. Tomorrow, we could revert to living in a wigwam and cooking food over an open fire and I’d be happy. In fact, if you care about the natural world—about plants and animals, water, air and soil—then the faster civilization goes down, the better.

So, given the fact of our civilization’s unsustainability, I’m puzzled by the reaction of most people—even those who have no love for this system in the first place. They’re all down with “going”green.”

The “go green” movement which now saturates our culture claims to be concerned with “saving” the environment. By “going green,” we who are destroying the environment are going to save it by consuming less and conserving more. We’re still going to eat that food and expand our population past the planet’s limits, still going to use the rest of the living world as “resources” and drive all life to extinction, and we’re still going to be unsustainable. But we’re convinced we’re going to “save” the environment by destroying it more slowly than we used to.

So, is destroying something more slowly the same as saving it? I ask because, by this logic, the Nazis were “going Semitic.” If at any time they slowed down the rate of exterminating captives in the death camps, they could say they were “saving” Jews. After all, they would be engaged in genocide more slowly than before.

This is the false logic of “going green.” It’s the logic of committing omnicide but doing it slowly—an eco-friendly omnicide, one where we hug the plants and animals we toss into the mass grave we have collectively dug slowly…and are still digging.

I suspect this argument may be hard to swallow for most. There are plenty of revered smart people on the “go green” bandwagon, so I expect most readers to defer to these experts’ big, big brains and dismiss my words as fantastical kookery. After all, why would everyone “go green” if it didn’t really save the environment? Why “go green” on a national and international scale?

I think I can answer that. When we “go green,” we don’t save the environment. But we do save civilization. At least for a time. We make our unsustainable system a little less destructive and we enable it to stick around a little while longer. We save a few feet of topsoil, a cup of drinkable water, some land-fill space for dumping plastic bottles—so we can use it up tomorrow. The plants, animals, air, water and soil aren’t saved—small amounts are simply set aside to be destroyed tomorrow, as fuel for our expanding death-camp civilization. We aren’t stopping the mass extinction of life, we’re just budgeting the mass extinction of life so we can keep our civilization rolling a little while longer, keep the Titanic afloat a few more miles. Going green extends the life of civilization as we know it—the same civilization destroying the environment in the first place. To make an analogy, are empowering a rapist so he can rape his victim slower, and rape his victim longer, and we are somehow convinced that our empowerment of the rapist equates with “saving” his victim.

This saves the community of life (which includes you and me) how? Life on the planet isn’t served by this collective effort to keep the rapist violating it slower and longer. If we want to save the environment, to save the community of life including ourselves, we have to come up with a plan to get rid of the rapist, the killer murdering it…and murdering us. We have to take it down as totally and completely as possible. The sooner, the better.

To me, this only makes rational sense. If you oppose the Nazi death camps, you don’t support a policy of slower extermination and call it “going Semitic,” patting yourself on the back for “saving” the Jews. No—you attack all of the systems and institutions that keep the death camps going. You interrupt its supply lines, liberate its captives, bomb its structures, shoot its masterminds. You don’t oppose genocide by stretching it out; you oppose it by taking away the enemy’s power to continue his program. Our only way to save the environment is to take down civilization—the whole death camp system. We have to interrupt its supply lines, liberate its captives, bomb its structures, shoot its masterminds and render the program inoperable. We have to employ the same tactics we would employ if our lives depended on it—because they do. Recycling bottles, marching and voting for well-intending politicians won’t cut it. That’s a plan for mass extinction.

I know the implications of this argument are probably pretty disturbing. The argument challenges everything we have been taught to believe to be true about right and wrong. Not only is it not evil or crazy to attack the social, political and economic institutions that keep civilization rolling, but it’s a moral duty, an act of self-defense, the only rational response to our situation. We have a duty to engage in conduct we’ve been taught to call “terrorism.”

By this thinking, everything that we always thought makes us good citizens really makes us the equivalent of “good Germans,” collaborators in a vast crime against all life. Our self-preservation demands that we attack and never surrender until the larger system is destroyed. It’s illegal to advocate political kidnappings, political assassinations, and bombings of government and corporate facilities. Because it’s illegal, I won’t say we should do all that, whether we should do all that or not.

These are difficult implications to swallow. Admittedly, if I wasn’t perfectly, reasonably correct in my analysis, it would be easy to write me off as a crackpot and return to being a thoughtless accomplice to this vast crime called civilization without blinking an eye. But, I believe, everything I’ve written is observably true: civilization is a death camp driving us to mass extinction.

So that leaves only one question…

What are we going to do about it?

***This article may or may not be written by Sean Swain but, because U.S. District Court Judge Jack Zouhary has given prison officials free license to punish Sean Swain any way they see fit for his social and political opinions published beyond prison walls, Swain has been selectively stripped of all constitutional protections and silenced by the United States government. As a free thinker subject to a fascist police state, Sean Swain cannot be credited for any published work such as this article, whether he wrote it or not. So, if Sean Swain wrote this, and no one is saying he did, he must do it anonymously to avoid government reprisals because U.S. District Court Judge Jack Zouhary repealed the First Amendment and forced the truth underground.

Sean Swain on the Anarchy Bridge!

Dear Occupy Cleveland Spokesperson

(If you Really are a Spokesperson),

I saw a segment on Fox 8 News out of Cleveland where, in a statement, you denounced the action of five Anarchists who allegedly intended to blow up a bridge. You denounced political violence, saying that it provokes the government to “take away our rights.”

Before I address your denunciation of political violence, I would like to correct an error in your statement. Governments do not take away rights. They cannot take them away because governments cannot bestow rights in the first place. Rights are rights. They are ours. Governments can recognize the right or not recognize the right, whatever the case may be, but you possess the right in any regard. If a government does not recognize your rights, then you have a duty to yourself and to your rights (and everyone else subjected to tyranny) to compel the government to recognize your rights.

If you do not, then the government has not “taken” your rights; you have relinquished your rights, and you have done so passively.

Which now gets me to your denunciation of political violence. The fact is, political violence is the only way to compel a government. Police and soldiers carry guns. This is the threat of violence. And as anyone knows, the threat of violence is violence itself. So, the relationship between subject and government is marked—no, it is principally defined –by violence, the threat of violence from government to subject.

People who denounce political violence are usually under the delusion that if subjects are not blowing up bridges or engaging in violence, then the relationship between subjects and government is a peaceful relationship. It is not and it can never be. Agents of the government carry guns, (the better to shoot you with).

The government, if permitted to monopolize violence, will encroach upon us and will use excuses to “take away” our rights, as you put it. What is actually happening is, the government is persuading us to relinquish right to our own detriment, and we do it because (1) the government is not afraid of us, and (2) we are afraid of the government.

If you really want to stand up for your rights, then you must employ means that will make the government afraid of you. If the government is not afraid, it will continue to encroach; and if you are continually afraid, you will continually relinquish rights, until the tyranny is entrenched and you are completely powerless.

It is in this context we must view the alleged intentions of five Anarchists. If they did what they were accused of doing, they deserve the support of everyone who cares about freedom. Will the government attempt to encroach upon us as a result? Certainly. And it will do so successfully unless we demonstrate an unwillingness to permit government to encroach upon us. Considering this, it can be easily argued that what we need are more Anarchists and more explosives, not less.

“Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires; make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world,” as V in V for Vendetta put it.

The reason the government will soon trample you is that you are a passive coward whose place is under the fascist boot of the government you worship as the source of your rights. It is not because five Anarchists with courage and vision attempted to employ legitimate and effective means to confront the fascist police state and liberate you from it.

Freedom or Death

Sean Swain

Political Prisoner

Prison Reg. 243-205

MANCI P.O. Box 788

Mansfield, Unceded Indian Territory, 44901

c: worldwide web

An Open Letter to Five Anarchists Accursed of the Intended Bombing of a Bridge in Cleveland.

18MAY12

Dear Friend,

I don’t know your names. All I know is what corporate news media has reported. They say you are Anarchists, that you intended to blow up a bridge, and that you purchased what you believed to be explosives from a federal informant. I don’t know how much of that is true.

I am going to assume for purposes of this letter that you are Anarchists. I hope that you are. In a world filled with mindless worshipers of hierarchy, freedom-loving Anarchists are too few and far between. I hope you to be Anarchists, just as I hope everyone to become Anarchists, to swear off slavery to bosses and tyrants and profiteers.

I will also assume that you intended to blow up a bridge. I hope that this is true also. We are enslaved by a sprawling system that forces us to live poor, butchered half-lives, that reduces us to drones; it can only continue with our participation, and when we work to directly obstruct and sabotage that system, we create free space for greater resistance.

By my way of thinking, you would not be destroying a bridge. You would be creating a future where there would be the absence of a bridge, and therefore the absence of a tool used by the larger machinery of enslavement.

Assuming you to be Anarchists, and assuming you to have intended to blow up a bridge, I want to first of all tell you that you are not failures. Though the bridge is still standing, you have planted a seed in the minds of many who would have continued to think of this inimical and repressive system as all-powerful, who would have viewed resistance as futile. You now have them asking the important question, “What if… ?” So, please do not be hard on yourselves. You deserve praise for your courage and vision, not blame for any perceived error of judgment.

For anyone who wishes to follow in your footsteps, however, I should point out that it is never necessary to purchase explosives. One can obtain them from mines, quarries, or lumber operations, and usually with little hassle since (1) the explosives are kept away from workers for safety reasons, and (2) they are usually secured by a single padlock which may or may not be locked. It is also worth mentioning that the power of explosives is usually expressed in relation to TNT, and that C4 is two and a half times more powerful. It should also be pointed out that it requires approximately 4 pounds of explosives per square foot to take down concrete or cinderblock structures, such as courthouses or schools or embassies or… bridges. That would be 1.6 pounds of C4 per square foot.

At any rate, I want to thank you. I have seen movies like “The Matrix” and “V for Vendetta” and I have cheered for the heroes in those movies, but I never expected to see them in real life. You are those heroes. You are Neo and V. You will inspire many others who will follow your example and will liberate the future from the grip of the fascists and crapitalists.

Which gets me to the point of my letter: I want you to hold on. You are not hopeless. You are not helpless. You are not alone.

I have twenty-one years of experience in the custody of these brutal terrorists. They will engage in psychological warfare, subjecting you to dehumanizing deprivations in order to break you, in order to weaken your resolve.

Resist.

When I was held in solitary confinement and subjected to sleep deprivation and torture, I found a few things that helped me to survive conditions with my integrity intact. First, I always sought a way to maintain connection with the outside world, even if it was through other prisoners sending out mail on my behalf.

Second, I found ways to resist, even if it was just refusing food and communication with my captors for an extended time. They need control, and when you refuse food, and then refuse to tell them why, it drives them crazy because they have lost control. Resistance, even small resistance, gives you purpose and gets you through the monotony of the day.

Third, I reminded myself daily of who I was. Part of the purpose of deprivation is to break your will and your sense of yourself so that they can re-define you. Never let them do that. Remember who you really are, notthe redefinition they attempt to re-impose upon you. This is particularly important during periods of sleep deprivation and torture.

Fourth, remember you are not alone. You have friends. Imagine their faces, then close your eyes and think of their essence being in the room with you. Think of the long tradition of comrades and militants who have gone before us and imagine that their essence too remains with you. You do not know me and you have never seen my face because I have been captive maybe since you were born, but I am with you; so imagine what you think I look like and place me in the cell with you. Isolation is only a matter of geography. You are not abandoned; you are just kind of far away. But this is temporary and you can get through it.

Fifth, keep in mind that everything the enemy does is designed to destroy you. If you are Anarchists as the media represents, then you already know, and everything you are has been shaped by the inimical pressures of the State and the hierarchs pushing down upon you to distort you and turn you into a useful tool. You already know the score.

Sixth, and finally, you should know that you will experience a wide range of emotions. Much of what you feel will seem intolerable. In those terrible moments, center yourself and breathe deeply and ask yourself, “What is my enemy doing in order to make me feel like this? What is my enemy’s intention?” Approach your situation from an analytical framework and see it for what it is.

What you now experience is temporary. It will pass. You may feel like you cannot endure it for one more moment, but you can—and you will. I think it is important that during the trauma we experience at the hands of our enemy, we remember that this system has set in motion its own inevitable destruction. It is unsustainable. It cannot continue long, and it is already eating itself. It is unraveling. This hierarchy thing is just a temporary glitch that will soon rectify itself and then all the titles like “Special Agent” and “Judge” and “Attorney General” will have no meaning. These will be the idiots who are far more shocked than we are when the whole system goes down the toilet, and they will need our help or will end up sitting down on the curb to let the dogs and the birds eat them.

In short, the future belongs to us. We walk on the surface of history.

Do not forget who you are. Hold on.