“Acts of resistance are moral acts. They take place because people of conscience understand the moral, rather than the practical, imperative of rebellion. They should be carried out not because they are effective, but because they are right.” – Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class

Obey. Consume. Do not inquire further.

This is the mantra of many co-opted corporate news networks that exist as echo chambers for corporatism. It’s no different on the hill – bought and paid politicians are nothing more than suits, tailor-fit and rigged for white-collar criminality.

Yet according to journalist Chris Hedges, the corporate state is declining fast. Despite its optimistic branding, Hedges says that economic models based on profit and growth alone are “systems of death.” With this wealth driven culture at the wheel, we’re undeniably heading toward economic and environmental catastrophe.

Hedges explains that political reform has been made obsolete with the death of the liberal class. When it comes to Wall Street and the war economy, there’s a bipartisan consensus cloaked in the illusion of partisan difference. Left is the new right. Blue is the new red. Hedges claims the antidote to this unsustainable system is artistic resistance:

“Those who resist with force cannot hope to defeat the corporate state. They will not sustain the cultural values that must be sustained if we are to have a future worth living. Armed resistance movements are always mutations of the violence that spawned them… Music, theatre, art, poetry, journalism, literature, dance, and the humanities, including the study of philosophy and history, will be the bulwarks that separate those who remain human from those who become savages.”

Made in the spirit of Hedges’ call to engage in subversive forms of art, the documentary Obey is a testament to art with teeth. From mass media’s connection to the perpetual war economy to Hedges’ prognostication of the demise of the capitalist state, Obey renders dissent in lucid multifaceted form.

***

Obey: Film Based on Chris Hedges Death of a Liberal Class

by British filmmaker and illustrator Temujin Doran

***

Written by Mike David Micklow

Photo by Anthony Freda Studio

With the controversy surrounding the recent Ukrainian coup and Crimean incursion, the wheels of war are turning once again, churning up an old foe. If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of the Red Menace prop being roused from the warmonger’s hall of archives, dusted off and wheeled down the plush carpet of the military-media complex.

The reanimation of the Cold War has been unleashed before our eyes, drenched in a gluttonous flurry of flashbulbs. The words of so-called “representatives” like Mike Rogers and Lindsay Graham are reproduced on corporate media to promote the pitch, hiding their defense and intelligence connections behind suits, ties and office titles, unable to contain their glee of resurrecting the Kremlin threat. Putin now represents the villain, because the brown-skinned Muslim boogie man has run its course. For months, the shiny new evil archetype has been playing out on your LCD flat-screen, feeding you the one tireless commodity impervious to the myth of scarcity: fear.

Will this media blitz trigger a Cold War redux?

An ominous storm of hegemonic forces has settled over the geopolitical landscape of Europe once again. We are living in deeply troubling times, according to the corporate media. Nevermind the fact that establishment media toes the line of its paymasters, which handsomely benefit from a state of perpetual war. Indeed, the same news networks decrying Russia’s occupation of Crimea were once rallying behind the US when it came to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. The few who didn’t fall in line with the pro-war narrative got fired, as Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC) can attest.

Nowadays dissent in the media is rare amid the strata of complicity and doublespeak, manufacturing daisy-chains of tepid consent. Yet one silver-lining of objection which has stood strong between the sales pitch of a renewed Cold War and reasonable criticism is RT’s Abby Martin. Recently on her show Breaking The Set, Martin chose to go against the editorial line of RT, denouncing Russia’s military action in Crimea. As Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept said, the day after the show:

“Abby Martin, remarkably demonstrated last night what “journalistic independence” means by ending her Breaking the Set program with a clear and unapologetic denunciation of the Russian action in Ukraine.”

This stance against militarism is nothing new. Abby Martin has been consistent in her dissent against military intervention overall, where since the inception of her show, back in Sept. 12th 2012, she has repeatedly taken on the US and its empire-building schemes. While most of the corporate media has failed to understand Martin’s sustained critique in light of her stance against the Russian occupation, her show’s video vault bears witness to a moral consistency against war.

Martin dissented from the official story that drone strikes are precise and humanitarian, citing a NYU study which found this narrative to be patently false. She underscored how US drones have a shockingly low success rate of only 2% and have even stooped to the level of targeting funerals – an act of state-sponsored terrorism itself. Martin dissented from the official story of Obama’s “hope and change” image waived around triumphantly by his naive supporters. She interviewed US historian Peter Kuznick and muckraker filmmaker Oliver Stone to talk in detail about how Obama has essentially codified the Bush regime’s most aggressive policies, in that Obama has eroded civil liberties like due process via the NDAA under the dubious pretext of the War on Terror.

But most importantly, Martin dissented from the usual glossing of various think tanks like The Council of Foreign Relations and their powerful influence on foreign policy, where most of these organizations comprise a nexus of former corporate media moguls like Tom Brokaw and Fareed Zakaria, along with former White House cabinet officials like Colin Powell and Madelaine Albright. Another example Martin points out is the Atlantic Council, whose membership includes top executives at defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Martin asks the question “why are the top defensive corporations in the world advising our lawmakers on foreign policy?”

The revolving door between public and private entities is bad enough, but when it comes to questions of foreign policy, media and war, it is downright nefarious, as Martin testifies. With Chevron’s recent multibillion dollar trade agreement to mine the Olesky deposit in Western Ukraine, which Kiev estimates can hold close to 3 trillion cubic meters of gas, we need to be vigilant in understanding that the corporate media is in the profit-making, not truth-telling business.

These are but a few examples of Abby Martin’s criticism against the military machine.  With the recent denouncing of Russian militarism, we can say with confidence that Martin’s critique of war transcends nation-lines, standing as a tried and true principle beholden to neither nation nor government but rather to the people and their right to know the truth. Conscious dissent ought to be held in the highest regard. As the late political dissident Howard Zinn once said:

“Historically, the most terrible things – war, genocide, and slavery – have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience.”

Just look at what obedient Washington correspondents did in republishing government press releases and drumming up support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The corporate media was nothing more than lapdog stenographers for wars of aggression which have been responsible for over a million deaths and tens of millions more displaced from their homes.

In between the warmongering, the corporate media shamelessly pumps out distractions, like the alarming amount of cuss words in Justin Bieber’s police transcript, or whether or not Malaysian Air fell into a black hole a la the TV series Lost (more solid analysis by Don Lemon over at CNN). If and when something of substance comes to light – like Crimea – the large majority of media will spin it in order to sell war. And either you toe the line, or you meet the same fate as Donahue.

The Dissenter’s Kevin Gosztola raises some important questions regarding Abby’s having to report from outside the US media apparatus in order to speak out against military action, American or otherwise:

“Why does someone have to work for RT in order to host a daily news program, where she is free to question military interventions by any country that violates the sovereignty of another country? Why couldn’t she work for CNN or MSNBC? Or a network where she would not have to constantly defend herself as being independent and not a Putin apparatchik?”

Questioning the official narrative of the government isn’t just an attribute of the media, it is the very essence of it. As Ben Franklin said, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”

But Martin’s message goes beyond simply speaking against the editorial line of her employer. Reflecting back on this event, we need to understand that such a bold stance demonstrates one of the highest forms of journalism, in that it denounces military aggression without resorting to the usual fearmongering of corporate media outlets.  As Martin says, what Russia did in Crimea was wrong, but that critique can hold substantive value without resorting to vilifying an entire nation through fear; because when an entire nation is vilified, space is created to unload horrendous policies like the Iraqi economic sanctions, which were responsible for over half a million deaths of children under the age of five.

Martin’s overall message is, essentially, a clear-headed call to action for diplomacy and peace unequivocally striking at the root of the problem, which is war and the profits behind it. As cultural critic, poet and visionary Henry David Thoreau said:

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

Abby Martin is that one striking at the root amid a chorus of hacks. I think it’s time we, the people, put aside the hacks, sharpen our minds and take dead aim. But to strike the root of injustice, we must first detract from the usual paradigms and engage in any and all forms of creative civil disobedience. Dissidence is its highest form – of not just American patriotism but egalitarian justice for all, no matter creed nor nationality. To go against the editorial line of one’s media outlet is the hallmark of a true independent journalist; to go against the elitist line of a war economy is the hallmark of a morally rich person. Let’s speak truth to power.

Written by Mike David Micklow

Photo by Flickr User Jayel Aheram

Now that the nation has celebrated MLK’s heroic agitation for civil rights, there’s another facet of Martin Luther King Jr. often ignored in the media that deserves reflection.

What do MLK, JFK and RFK share in common?

Indeed, all three of them had undeniable charisma which directly and emphatically threatened the powers that be. Each demanded a presence with their sheer character, possessing an uncanny ability to embody the words they spoke rather than simply acting as another suit-and-tie with a political platform pre-scripted by some other PR suit-and-tie.

All three had the ability to enact change at a fundamental level, because they were personally convicted and committed to dissenting against war in a world that had become hellbent on destruction and violence.

But there is a further striking similarity between these three charismatic leaders: all of them were assassinated after focusing their critiques against the war machine.

In his formative stages, MLK was a radical proponent of non-violent protest against segregation and racism. He orchestrated sit-ins and marches in order to fight on behalf of African-Americans and the deprivation of their basic civil liberties as stamped in the Constitution. Nowadays, MLK is known for his success as a civil rights champion in regards to race equality. But later down the road, he had a stark realization which radically shifted the way he thought about political dissidence. This change of heart is what I wish to underscore, in remembrance of MLK and what he was willing to stand – and die – for.

We’re all familiar with MLK’s “I Have a Dream Speech” speech that he delivered in 1963 in Washington, D.C., culminating his March on Washington protest. In the speech, MLK envisions a day when racial inequality is no more, replaced by an egalitarian, racially colorblind America. However, in April of 1967, some four years later, Martin Luther King had a different culprit in mind – American foreign policy. In a speech entitled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” delivered at Manhattan’s Riverside Church, King excoriates the military industrial complex and sees it as a fundamental wrong that ought to be first and foremost on our minds. King begins by addressing himself, critiquing his own “silence” on matters of foreign policy:

“Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?” “Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people,” they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.” 

He then goes on to say, in some of the most moving words I have ever heard:

“As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.

For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a Civil Rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed from the shackles they still wear.

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read “Vietnam.” It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”

We could call this MLK’s “I Have A Nightmare” speech, as King begins to realize that the systemic evils involved in racism are also found in the roots of militarism. After transitioning his critique from domestic to foreign policy, King was shortly thereafter assassinated.

Likewise, JFK lived out the beginning of his first term acquiescing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA in their bid to prevent the dominoes from falling in favor of Communism, orchestrating coups and military operations in different regions of the world so to spread the seed of democracy and fulfill the long held tenants of Manifest Destiny. Like MLK, over time JFK eventually transitioned his aim toward the end of his first term, threatening to remove troops from Vietnam, negotiate an arms-treaty with Russia, and call for peace with Cuba, all of which would have effectively shut down the military machine. JFK was assassinated shortly thereafter.

Furthermore, RFK, who in his early years as the Attorney General to JFK was quite hawkish in regards to covert operations against Cuba, platformed his own presidential bid on fulfilling his brother’s wishes for peace, not war. RFK was also assassinated shortly thereafter.

Is it simply a coincidence that all three of these charismatic leaders were snuffed out by psychotic, nutty lone assassins whilst activating their political stance to reappropriate a republic that had been hijacked by aggressive militarism? In the case of MLK’s assassination, a Memphis, Tenn. grand jury in 1999 ruled his death not as the result of a lone nut but rather a government conspiracy, warranted by an enormous amount of evidence.

Fast forward to today, with Obama being another charismatic possessing the ability to sway an entire nation with his rhetorical skills. He too started out like JFK in critiquing the war machine, but after getting into office wholly relented to the military-industrial complex. In similar fashion to JFK’s unsanctioned war crimes, Obama’s drone policy has claimed the lives of many innocent human beings and so-called “terrorists,” strikes which are happening without Congressional oversight and thereby subject to the rubric of a war crime per international law.

Will we perhaps see a pang of conscience in Obama like we’ve seen with the aforementioned charismatics? Maybe. But let’s not forget, JFK committed his own war crimes even though he’s often heralded as an agitator of peace. Early on in his presidency, he was directly responsible for authorizing operations like Operation Mongoose, and the coup of South Vietnam’s president. Yet in the end, JFK had the spine to face up to his own atrocities and instead promote peace and democracy.

Although, it’s important to note that JFK made reform late in his first term, whereas Obama has dutifully served his corporate paymasters and war mongers all the way through his first term and so far into his second.

A considerable amount of evidence points to the simple fact that our presidents are only figureheads. They hold very little political power in any actual, substantive sense, because their financial backers and corporate lobbies are the ones ultimately calling the shots. Nevertheless, U.S. Presidents do retain the highest office in the land and thus have a media platform unlike any other individual. They are able to reach the masses immediately with a single speech.

While Obama has demonstrated himself to be an agent of illegality, we as political dissidents must not fall into the trap of demonizing him. Russian novelist and Nobel Prize winner, Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, once said:

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

In the same vein of JFK, Obama retains the ability to choose to turn against the military machine and stand up for what is right and just and good. In similar fashion to MLK, Obama still has the chance to look deep within himself and break the betrayal of his own silence.

Will Obama use his undeniable charisma and fight back against the corporate masters that currently play him like a puppet, as did some of his predecessors? Or will he continue to live up to his placard of hope and change in name only, nothing more than a nice-looking, smiley suit-and-tie on strings?

One thing is for sure: if Obama were to cut the strings and stand up for what’s right, there could very well be a heavy price to pay.

Written by Mike David Micklow

Photo by flickr user Jason Rosenburg

Time and again, US presidents have been impeached or forced to resign for all the wrong reasons.

Nixon resigned not because of the secret wars illegally conducted in Laos and Cambodia, but because he was caught bugging the phones of his political adversaries. Nixon wasn’t cuffed, read his Miranda rights and thrown into the back of a squad car for violating Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that only Congress has the ability to enact war; instead he was given a catwalk and a fucking helicopter to leave the White House.

Nixon wasn’t relegated to an 8×10 cell to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of innocents that were vaporized by an ordinance dropped by B-52 bombardiers, rather he was given the comfy post-office title of former president, making media appearances in order to rationalize his brazen lawlessness, such as when he said, “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” Only a madman could say something like that with a straight face.

The same goes for Clinton. Clinton wasn’t impeached for violating the War Powers Act when he conducted a languishing air campaign in Kosovo to squash Serbian ethnic cleansing without Congressional authority. Notably, his was the first combat operation conducted for more than sixty days without express congressional authorization, setting the precedent for later presidents like Bush and Obama. Clinton wasn’t impeached for the economic terrorism waged against Iraq by implementing economic sanctions, which resulted in over half a million innocent deaths due to malnutrition and lack of healthcare. No, he was impeached for putting a cigar where he wasn’t supposed to.

And then there’s Bush. I mean, take your pick – warrantless wiretaps; offshore penal colonies; torture; wars of aggression. Yet, amazingly enough, there was no impeachment nor resignation to be found. In fact, former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that “impeachment was off the table” in 2006.

Over the last half century, POTUS has progressively gotten bolder with its actions, and Congress has progressively gotten weaker in turn. Worse still, the only times when Congress has shown some spine in standing up to the administration, it has been for all the wrong reasons.

Not only is Obama overseeing a blatantly unconstitutional dragnet spying program across the planet, he’s waging an illegal drone war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and the violation of multiple nations’ sovereignty. Just like Nixon, this act of war has been shrouded in secrecy, as Glenn Greenwald recently elaborated upon in the Guardian:

“What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch – with no checks or oversight of any kind – but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president’s underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president – at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as “Terror Tuesday” – then chooses from “baseball cards” and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.”

According to Obama’s “Disposition Matrix” legalese, the good president retains legal grounds to assassinate individuals based not on any actual link to terrorism but rather on “patterns-of-behavior” analyses alone. For instance, Obama would have us believe that some poor Bedouin in Yemen has been radicalized because of intelligence reports alone, and if we don’t act now he’ll will probably conduct a terrorist attack in the near future, because a.) he posted a YouTube video proclaiming “Death to the Great Satan, America!” b.) visited Afghanistan for a “cousins’ wedding” c.) has a shirt that says “I Heart Osama.” How is this process even remotely legal, let alone accurate and effective?

Barring Obama having access to any sort of clairvoyance, this ought to be an open-shut case for his immediate removal from office, and for him to face charges of crimes against humanity in international courts. It’s time we impeach POTUS for the right reasons. It’s time we stand up and speak truth to fuckery.

If you are with me on this, then link this story to Twitter and include the hashtag #STTF.  Let’s get this trending.

Written by Mike Micklow for Media Roots

Photo by Flicker user Reggestraat