The Two Freedoms II: Julian Assange I

From The Desk Of Jakob Musıck: Secretary-General of Nothing
May 30 2017 (England Peasant Revolt of 1381 Begins)
11 Prairial an 225 de la Révolution
Year Juche 106

*

The Two Freedoms: Julian Assange

Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism and founder of the information agency Wikileaks Julian Assange has spent 1,807 days confined to one building. That is 4 years, 11 months, and 2 days. He spends his life in the embassy of Bolivarian Ecuador day-in and day-out. Police of the United Kingdom are posted everywhere outside the embassy-- facing every door, every window, every possible escape route. Osama Bin Laden lived in less confined circumstances his entire life!

The crime this man must have committed surely is great. For what other reason would the United Kingdom, a country with several problems, nonetheless actual terrorism, keep such a close eye on whether Assange tried to leave? His crime is ‘resisting the summons of the British Police.’ This was originally in connection with a request of the Swedish government, which was pursuing a rape charge on Assange. What great feminists these countries are! Defending women at all costs, eh? I’m sure every rape case is carried out so doggedly. What a paradise for women the UK and Sweden must be!

*

Assange was an accomplished hacker when he registered the domain “leaks.org” in the 1990’s. He began activist work on the internet, which was then gaining traction as a source for alternative information, news, and distribution that could go around governments and their controls. He was said to have blasted an NSA “voice-data harvesting” patent of August 1999, and said "This patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of an unaccountable foreign spy agency." (Assange being Australian, although NSA is alien to all non-robot life, I would offer.)

How many people then could have seen where this was going? What a remarkable, visionary mind one must have to be able to pontificate on the future, and do so correctly? As we know, writers blather about ‘The Future’ all the time. We know of the absolutely ludicrous predictions of futurism in the 1800’s, the 1950’s, and Soviet leaders’ prediction of “Communism by the 1980’s.” For most people, trying to predict the future, is a futile game. We can only judge based on what the past provides us as evidence, our guiding ideology, and the laws of history. It a wise man who does not often make statements he cannot back up. But there are exceptions, of course, and that is why it is important to remark at how extraordinary Assange’s prediction of where the National Security Agency would go in utilizing their new patent. For just 2 years after his prediction, we began to learn the American intelligence agency was doing just as he said! What prescience

Assange had called the internet ‘the greatest tool for our emancipation’, but now qualified it by saying it could be the highest asset for totalitarian control. I guess it remains to be seen which vision will prevail as time goes. In the grand scheme of things, we live in ‘the internet age,’ but we are only the fore-bearers.

Wikileaks was established in 2006 by Assange, and he remains editor-in-chief, authorizing a wide variety of information releases submitted by an army of unknown and mostly anonymous sources: people of courage and principle, many working within organizations that violate basic human rights. Often times information would end up in Wikileaks’ pile that would inform American citizens, through their broad platform, what cost the American Empire was exacting from Arabs and Pashtun peoples half-way around the world.

By 2015, Wikileaks had published 10 million secret or semi-secret documents held by governments that the organization determined were in the public interest to know. Here are some things we know because of this blessed organization, dating back more than 10 years. It is important to actually look at the information revealed by Wikileaks, because, at least in the American media, more attention is placed on the organization, the government’s response to it, and the person of Assange rather than any incriminating information:

2006: first leak posted on Somalia

2007: Corruption of Kenyan political elite exposed;

“Standard Operating Procedures For Camp Delta” -- the US military’s guide to their activities in the prison camp in Cuba. Statements that the United States had made were found to be contradicted by their own SOP-- that they used dogs to terrorize prisoners, and also that the Red Cross was told some prisoners were “off-limits” to them

2008: Videos of protesters in the Tibet region in the People’s Republic Of China were made available on the site, going around censors of that country. The world could see that, indeed, civil protests were going on, and that in the all-important year of the Olympic Games, the PRC was initiating a crack-down they were trying to hide. Also, the various expensive theological materials of the Scientology Religion were leaked, giving people access to what was several hundreds of thousands of US dollars worth of information.

2009: More on corrupt Kenya. Wikileaks publishes the material of a Kenyan human rights group criticizing the Kenyan police’s extra-judicial killings of its citizens. A few months later, Kenya responded. 2 prominent organizers from the Kenyan National Commission On Human Rights were assassinated. Also in 2009, Wikileaks releases private communications of climate scientists, with the end result being that climate organizations decide on the need to act more openly and reveal more of their internal discussion to the public, for the sake of public faith in their profession. Previous to this, the scientists had been seen as ‘secretive’ and climate ‘denialists’ made much hay of their private communications. In the same year, Assange’s native country, Australia, proposed a list of websites it intended to ‘ban’ access to. Wikileaks published this policy and list. Because of the same law, Reporters Sans Frontiers re-classified Australia as ‘under surveillance.’ The government of Australia claimed that its intent was to target pornography of children, violence, and activities that broke the laws of the nation. After Wikileaks brought out the information, the Rightist-Liberal government withdrew its support for the ‘black-list.’ But the government did not need to take this action necessarily; In 2011 two internet providers voluntarily implemented the blacklist. In the next year, Labour withdrew support for its internet filtering scheme. The ISPs that voluntarily implemented the list, however, covered 90% of Australians using the internet. It was not the government that announced the filters had become mandatory, but ISPs that made it public, despite the major political parties dis-avowing themselves from it due to backlash. In 2015, an internet blacklist protecting private ‘intellectual-property’ holdings was passed in the country. I want to stay brief but draw attention to this interesting note that, even before Wikileaks drew attention from the Empire, it was already quite effective at not only disseminating information, but also changing behaviour (whatever the consequences of that may be.) In this case, the Australian intelligence establishment passed it anyway, revealing that policies in that country were not necessarily controlled by the bourgeois political parties.  Also of note is the origination of a policy with ‘public safety’ and specifically to ‘save the children’ ending up protecting corporation’s profits is a solid, recurring pattern in the Liberal Democracies with laws of this ilk.  Denmark and Thailand’s ‘ban-lists’ were also posted. The Bilderberg group, the NGO that feeds the fantasies of millions of ‘lizard-watchers’, also were the subject of a Wikileaks penetration in 2009, with meeting notes spanning decades released. Corruption in Peru revealed by Wikileaks also was distributed by commercial media in that country. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nuclear ministry in that country was shaken by the removal of an official and the mysterious reduction in nuclear materials the country held. Wikileaks was able to establish that there had been a major nuclear accident at Natanz, affecting an unknown amount of people. It was also possibly tied to the infamous western-governments’ Stuxnet virus. Wikileaks was used against Switzerland-based Trafigura corporation, which was dumping their chemicals off of the Ivory Coast ‘affecting 108,000’ Ivoiriens. When an internal review, detailing all of the horrible side-effects of being exposed to such materials of their dumping was to be published by the Guardian, the corporation ran to the United Kingdom government, which gave them something called a ‘super-injunction,’ after threatening the Guardian, Norway’s external news service, and academic journals. No media outlets were even allowed to quote the questions of Parliamentarians to Trafigura. Because of the existence of Wikileaks, which is extra-legal, unlike the establishment media, the world was given access to Trafigura’s own knowledge of how much damage they were doing to Africans. In regard to the world financial depression in the late 2000’s, Wikileaks published information on the banking sector of Iceland, which spectacularly collapsed both financially and politically following the crisis. The bank threatened Wikileaks, but the uproar over improprieties causing the instability in the Icelandic economy fueled the push-back against the banker-regime there.

2010: It was in this year that Wikileaks became infamous because it crossed the Empire’s cross-hairs  in a major way. First, Wikileaks publishes the efforts of the prominent Barclays Bank to avoid paying tax to the United Kingdom government. The publication the Guardian, which served as the mirror for many Wikileaks publications, revealed that because of budget cuts and the allocation of funds, government officials were having to rely on services like Wikileaks to be able to do their investigation, revealing the duality of the nature of Wikileaked information -- it is, by definition for everyone. Conceivably, governments could benefit from the free flow of information just as private individuals could. However, Wikileaks targets those of power and money, therefore, governments end up being the target often-times. The United States, after the leaks of how much it was spending on weapons and human rights violations in its prison camp, was developing protocol on how to deal with Wikileaks. Wikileaks released that very document, and then went further, releasing one of the most consequential videos of all time (mentioned in the last post): the 2007 Baghdad airstrike video, obtained from Chelsea Manning. It shows American forces attempting to assassinate Reuters journalists, wounding children, and then not stopping the fire once the remaining alive tried to carry the children to safety. This video drew international outcry, led to the identification of Chelsea Manning as a leaker and her detainment, and inside the United States provoked the commercial media to debate leakers and the Wikileaks organization (if not what it had leaked.) Chelsea Manning was arrested, in court saying that there lies a “scandal” in every US embassy and declaring that the Wikileaks files detail how “the first world exploits the third world, in detail…” Next came the group of leaks called “The Afghan War Diary.” This leak came with provisions in case that Assange was assassinated or Wikileaks dismantled. According to Assange, his organization reached out to the Pentagon and NGOs to help redact personal information from the leaks to no avail. Governments, banks, and other organizations that are targeted by Wikileaks often protest that Wikileaks puts people in danger by revealing their personal information. At this point, according to the website Daily Beast, the Obama government in the United States approached allies UK, Germany, and Australia to develop criminal charges against Assange personally. This will be the end of this post, but in the next edition, we will see how these efforts bore fruit in Assange’s surrender to UK police, detainment, his exile to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and multi-government efforts to detain and possibly assassinate him, and most importantly, how they have thusfar failed spectacularly.

Long Live Wikileaks!

Long Live Freedom Of Information And The People’s Right To Know!

Long Live Julian Assange & His Associates!

Red Salute!

The Two Freedoms 1: The Release Of Chelsea Manning

From The Desk Of Jakob Musıck: Secretary-General of Nothing
May 27 2017 (Dorsland Trek Begins)
7 Prairial an 225 de la Révolution
Year Juche 106

The Two Freedoms:

On The Release Of Chelsea Manning

Well, well. Where to begin? So much is going on in the world. We are living in interesting times, as they (always) say. I still have not given a full tribute to the two advocates of government transparency and the people’s right-to-know -- Julian Assange and the maltreated Chelsea Manning -- who have received at least some of their freedom back after years of repression in democracies. They are the two freedoms. Blooming, blossoming, free. Chelsea can now not only speak for herself, but enjoy bodily integrity and try to live as much of a normal life as she can, after what she has been through, and what she done. Deciding to committ a world-historic act, one of rebellion, one of revolutionary consequences can easily rob the subject of their 'normal' social life. Let us hope she can live the way she wants to, as the people not deigned for death because of her disclosure do. If the United States even commits one less terror-inciting drone assassination per day, humanity will have won.

Manning, who originally was known as Bradley when he was detained for leaking video of American armed forces gruesomely murdering several journalists and civilians in Iraq, including those trying to bring children to safety after being targeted for assassination by the United States. Their crime? One of the men was holding a camera. If that is not poetic and indicative, I am sure what is. That video, which will go down as one of the most influential clips of all time, did not come without a price. Chelsea was suffered -- much like an Arab adult man would be if they so ‘lucky’ as to be plucked out of their home to face ‘extraordinary rendition’ (United States forces operating in Middle Eastern countries count all men from about 18 to middle age to be potential combatants irregardless.) Speaking to Amnesty International, the same group that aroused the ire of American authorities for releasing information relating to their ‘loss of several billion dollars worth of weapons that’ that often-times find their way into the hands of Islamic radicals like Islamic State, Manning said that the video and material he released tries to cut through the de-personalized way of killing people through drone that the United States has pioneered and terrorized millions with. Chelsea was arrested in 2010 and sent to a prison in the monarchy of Kuwait.  She was charged under the 1910’s Espionage Act, used several times by the Obama Administration to target information distribution. Chelsea, by releasing the famous Iraq video, and another in which the United States killed up to 134 Afghan civilians, was considered to be ‘Aiding the Enemy’ (as in Islamic Fundamentalists.) The argument went that the internet is accessible to The Enemy, and Manning knew this, thus ‘Aiding the Enemy.’ She was moved to Virginia, in the United States, and placed in maximum custody detention, meaning checks by guards every 5 minutes, and always being seen by American military personnel. No privacy. No way out. Manning was said to have wanted to kill herself, but the United States of America, the land of the free, had not extracted its pound of suffering yet. Her cell was 6 ft x 12 ft. The many murderers we have incarcerated in this country are given more space, not to mention time outside and ‘privileges.’ Things could have been worse, at least in 2010. Manning had access to Television, one book, and one magazine, as well as rights to walk and speak to her defense attorneys, and the US government was (oddly enough) still paying her salary as a military personnel. In 2011, the situation fundamentally changed. Guards started harassing her arbitrarily, made her remove her clothing and glasses, and she began to be detained in the cell 24 hours a day. It was at this point, that the United States military’s behaviour with regard to their most famous political prisoner began to arouse international indignation. The United Nations Special Rapporteur On Torture said that the treatment of Manning was “cruel, unusual, and degrading.” He was incorrect. This was totally usual in America’s War Of Terror. Had the Rapporteur been awake during the publicity of Abu-Gharib? Had he bothered to even cursorarily search the word "Guantanamo," synonymous with 'the usual' in American torture. Even within the Washington regime, people’s consciousnesses started to get the better of them. State Department Spokesperson Phillip Crowley resigned after criticizing the treatment of the political prisoner. After being embarrassed by world and domestic reaction, Manning was transferred to a rather humane (if prison can ever be described a such) cell in Kansas. Late in 2011, Manning was taken to the American state of Maryland to face military trial. As of 2013, some elements of the American state at least understand that what they are doing is wrong from a humanitarian point of view. They started to waver. That year, Manning’s sentence was reduced because of the harsh treatment she had received (having to go about naked etc…) She was acquitted of ‘Aiding The Enemy.’ Psychologists in the US Military stated that Manning was diseased, both with fetal alcohol syndrome and the no-longer existing Asperger's Syndrome, and that by releasing the information to Wikileaks, she was “enacting a grandiose ideation.” Another psychological professional in the trial expressed what, quite clearly, was the case: Manning released the tapes and information with the intent to show Americans what ‘their’ wars were reaping upon the civilians of the Middle East. Their victims. To put human faces and images to the abstract ‘enemy’ and ‘insurgents,’ de-humanizing gobbledegook that the United States government and news media had perpetrated for years. Manning’s dream was that the United States public would awake with sympathy to the plight of their brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq, that they would rise up with compassion and indignantly oppose this war and all wars. That no war ‘was worth it.’ If that is ‘Aiding The Enemy,’ than the ‘enemy’ you speak of is murderous imperialism.

These victims were other humans, mostly completely innocent, including children, who just happened to be around, and journalists commendably doing their job in war zones, risking their lives, like Manning, for the sake of information freedom and education. The journalists on the film bravely discharged their duties, plus attempting to harbour the children, under the banner of Reuters News Agency.

The United States initially wanted the rest of Manning’s conceivable lifetime behind bars (90 years.) By some sort of miraculous occurrence, she ‘only’ received 35 years in prison and was discharged from the United States Armed Forces. Manning’s lawyers foolishly asked President Obama (whom under all of the above happened) for a presidential pardon, and attached Amnesty International’s pleas for human rights, as if that material would make up anything more significant than the lining of a bird-cage. As many revolutionary figures, including the torture-expert Kim Il-Sung (who I happen to be reading several works of at-the-moment) wrote, you don’t ask imperialist powers for anything: As long as they are standing, every act they commit, whether speech or action, will further imperialist interests. The encounter between the individual and the Empire is not one of two equal individuals, though Empire is made up of many people (some who valiantly showed their support for Manning within the government.) You must have no illusions when dealing with this kind of mestastisized state. Only when Imperial regimes are de-throned and an authentic nation or state emerges from the ashes, will any sort of humanitarian response be possible. This is how one should view the various moves to aid the conditions of Manning during her imprisonment-- Imperialism was not capitulating, was not admitting it did anything wrong, was not choosing to forego any of its mission or methods-- it was simply evidence of what Empire has to yoke itself on the back of-- individuals. As rapper Immortal Technique spoke of high Military Officials, “A machine cannot speak for man.” But there are many men in the machine, and their small acts of kindness and solidarity with their fellow American made themselves known here. There is a nuclei within the United States government that already is resigning the Imperial Project to the dustbin. These forces will be vital when Empire is either renounced or forced down low.

 

So, to bring this back to our hero, how did Manning end up free? It has not been 3 decades, but just a few years have passed! Sometimes foolishness pays off. As the twilight of the Obama Administration was upon us, and the prospect of the Reality Star upon a horrified world, another miraculous event occurred. History made a mistake. Perhaps worried of his tarnished legacy of Health Care Reform efforts that would be repealed, record of adding destruction and death to the nations of Libya, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and indirectly several others including Mali (by destabilizing Libya), serving up the perfect atmosphere for the forming of the lethal Islamic State Caliphate (probably the most nefarious human force of our times), not just pardoning but rewarding bankers and hucksters of the elite class that caused untold suffering in the economic collapse of the late 2000's with the "bail-out" (the largest transfer of wealth up-ward in American history) ,and pursuing prosecution of more journalists and whistleblowers than the leaders before him, perhaps President Obama stopped and thought he would perhaps look bad. Perhaps he faltered in that minute, wondering if what he had enacted, the interests he had served, were really ‘right’ in the end. He did not pardon Chelsea Manning, but commuted her sentence to 4 months after that day, in the light of more than 10,000 Americans speaking out for her freedom via lawful petition. This was nothing short of a miracle. Bourgeois freedoms are the difference between mature Liberal Democracies, like the United States, and ‘other’ Democracies, such as the Socialist 2nd world-bloc. In the Soviet Union at its Stalinist prime, Manning would have been summarily killed, or used for slave labour until her death. That is why, though distorted and completely de-based by imperialist aims and actions, there is something very special in the maligned ‘Western world.’ And the unlikely source of the United States Head of State allowed that to happen before giving up the ghost of his presidency.

It will be many years before the full implication of the knowledge we now have of American activities abroad sinks in. If this information was available in previous times, American intervention in Korea and Viet Nam may have been either impossible or shortened considerably. When an ‘enemy’ becomes a human with a face, with a family, with a will, with a voice, they cease to be ‘enemy’ as man knows his family, that is, his brothers and sisters from around the world. One race. One species. One humanity. One international project we all are responsible for. Chelsea Manning did The Impossible and received The Impossible. Currently the highest levels of American power are teetering over claims of traitorism and enemy-collaboration, but once this calms down, the factions desist, and normality regains itself, we may find a harshened environ. A Chelsea Manning may not be possible again. But then again, who would have believed the Stasi archives of the DDR (East Germany) would have ever been opened? Only a fool. And it is only the fool who will believe that American Empire will allow anyone to come out of this alive, ever again. But once in awhile, the fool is right.

Long Live Information!

Long Live The Internet!

Long Live The People’s Right To Know!

Long Live Wikileaks!

Long Live The Endurance of The Honourable Middle Eastern People!

Long Live Whistleblowers!

Long Live Chelsea Manning!

Long Live Compassion!

I dedicate this humble post to the bravery, incredible strength, and endurance of Chelsea Manning, who became a national hero while fighting mental illness and coming out as transgender. You are our model for the hero of the future.

 

Long Live!

Letter To A Loved One...

From The Desk Of Jakob Musıck: Secretary-General of Nothing
May 26 2017 (Napoleon Receives Iron Crown Of Lombardy)
6 Prairial an 225 de la Révolution
Year Juche 106

Letter To A Loved One (Redacted)

Well,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I may want to lash out but I'm not going to do it or say anything with intent to make you feel bad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is not fair to you, and I do not believe that it was fair to me, given the circumstances to have you speak to me like that. I think you may not have experienced what it is like to have a disease and hear people tell you, that in the midst of your suffering, that it "was my fault". Do you really think I don't know that every morning------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------?

Every confrontation we have, for years, I hear how "I don't get this" or that, "I don't understand" this or that. You two must think I am the biggest dufus upon this earth. I have heard that phrase---------------------------- more than almost any others.

I could go through and say every good thing I do, all the woes of my life, why you shouldn't judge me like that. blah, blah whatever. That kind of confidante relationship is not something we have ever had, and most times when we have, I have regretted it. Also, no person has to prove themselves to another. So I'm not going to go (though I could on and on.)

You said I don't have a job --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When I tried to get another job in Jacksonville, at McDonald's it was you who told me not to! So many people told me I was making a mistake; that I shouldn't trust you given the past, that this problem would come back. Of course they were right.

There have been hundreds of applications and efforts to try to make money that I have undergone since 2015. I am not going to go into details because you don't want to hear these. And that would be manipulative, which I am not going to do.

To correct you, I do have a job. It is a full-time position at a charity and I am paid less than minimum wage. The programme is intentionally designed for me to be poor. I couldn't find anything else! This was my plan z! Do you think I want to earn less than minimum wage? Do you think I want to not be able to support myself? That would be insanity.

I don't need your help to take no pride in my monetary situation. Yes I am poor. I AM POOR. I have NO MONEY , but you know what, every day I wake up and I fucking help people with nearly no monetary incentive. In that I can take pride and I will tell that it is honourable and I am proud to do it.

For years, I have had to hear, because of my dependent position, all of you and ----- expression of resentment at supporting me. You continue to give me money despite saying you don't want to and that I impact you negatively. I think you are not allowing yourself to do what you want to do, so I will help you. Your actions and your words have not added up for years, and-------------------------------------------------you did not fully engage with the therapeutic process in the fullest that I know you could do.

Do you not think I want to be independent? In fact I have tried for most of the past few years to have as little from you as I could! But of course I'm still making less than minimum wage, so in what position am I to turn down money. How could someone in my situation do that?

I think for years you have been expressing that you don't want to support me. Unintentionally or not, you have let me know time and time again.

And I'm done being the target of this resentment. You keep complaining but you won't act. In 2015 or 2014, after one of these never-ending conversations about money you gave me ONE bill for my car insurance which I paid, and asked for anything you wanted me to pay for just give me the bill. You did maybe once and that was it? What am I supposed to take from this? Was it too much work to even give me a paper copy or even write down of what I should give you? It is from things like this that I and others have concluded the real issue is not the money at all, but your feelings that you are being taken advantage of, and that I do not deserve what I am getting; add onto this that I have received more monetary support in my life than either --- or you have in your lives when you were my age.

I demand that you keep a noting of everything you spend on me that you wish me to pay you back for. I will, of course, not be able to pay it back for several years, but I am an honourable person and I will pay you back. If you would have just had the decency to do this instead of putting me through all of this emotional turmoil for years, I could at least walk around not feeling like a burden. I don't even really think this is about money; I think it is about control -- and I'm not the only one. Scores of people have come upon this same conclusions. It is far past the time to liberate both of us from this neurotic cycle! Nonetheless, the money is what you talk about so I would like you keep a full amount of what I owe you so that I can pay you back in the future. Don't hesitate to go back as far as you would like. You have repeatedly let me know how hurt, angry, and frustrated you both are at me for having to support me. So let's fix this with a guarantee that when I can I will pay you I will if it takes decades I don't care. At least allow me to live with this dignity. Please. I have no money, I don't make enough to support myself, I am mentally ill, I live with slobs, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------and I have no friends or confidante in my community at all. Can you please at least give me this dignity?

If you do not start compiling my charges, I will not speak about this with you at all. In fact, I will hang up the phone if you try to talk about this. Because I *cannot* continue this way. This is not for you, it is for my psychological well-being. Clearly, you have let me know you are very distressed as well. It seems like this will solve 2 problems. Also, I remind you this of everytime we speak, but you do not have to do anything for me. At all. No one is forcing you.. I don't think I resent you, because as you have perfectly argued to me for years, I don't deserve what I have received, and it is an undue burden -------------------- when it could go to other ends, --------------------------

--------------------------You can choose whether to keep supporting me or not or what degree you want to do it, but I will not talk about it with you in this way any longer. Your speech is telling me you don't want to, yet your actions are doing exactly the opposite. All that I ask is that if you are going to withdraw support in a certain area, please give me one-months notice.

You can ask anyone I speak to, I have never had anything but boundless gratitude for the support I have received from you --------------------------------------. I have been given more than I deserve. I will tell that to anyone and have never expressed ingratitude since I have been an adult. I get that If nothing else I understand this from 15+ years of this being pounded into my head

I have been very lucky. But clearly this cannot continue. I think you will feel much better when you give me what you think I deserve.

Again, because you have proven unable to act, I will not talk to you about any of these matters until I get assurance that you have started to compile amounts you would like me to pay you back in the future. I honestly don't mind this-- it has been drilled into my mind for 15 years or more that I don't deserve what I have from you. Let's let our reality align with what should be, so that our relations can be without resentment and our actions align with our true feelings.  

I am going to cancel my procedure tomorrow. I will take care of it when I get my medicaid benefits in July. As you have told me, this was preventable by me. I deserve to suffer. ------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

Do not call me tonight; I will not answer. You can text or email me. Also I will let you tell --- they will not need to take me to surgery and let you tell that what you will, as you had originally made those arrangements. I will not take their calls tomorrow to give you a chance to sort that out.

As always, I am so thankful for everything materially that you have given me.

We can both celebrate my birthday this year, when you will have one less burden of mine!

Jakob

Review: Harry Styles, "Harry Styles" + Promotional Film

From The Desk Of Jakob Musıck: Secretary-General of Nothing
May 24 2017 (First telegram sent)
5 Prairial an 225 de la Révolution
Year Juche 106

Harry Styles, “Harry Styles”

After watching The Apple Music documentary -- Im starting to believe that Harry Styles is intentionally situating himself as The Void: His songs are in an arcane style and talk about nothing in detail, his expressed wish is to *not* have people know him better through his musick, he has an arrogant presence of someone whom is famous, but leaves you wondering exactly what it is beside his bravado that is 'enchanting'. He intentionally dresses in shabby clothing, looking like he is trying to over-age himself into some sort of neophyte Ernest Hemingway. Pitchfork had it absolutely correct that his album is full of stock phrases-- which is common in pop. But what is not common is that the 'fun' is missing. The whole album passes you by and beside perhaps one or two instances it's like you have been in a heroin nod and all of a sudden you realize it is over, with a completely featureless sonic contour. This album, despite what he wants you to think, with his feminine clothing and auteur-indie persona, is nothing at all 'new', unlike what he claims in the Apple Music doc. On top of all of this, he has Irving Azoff's son behind him, contributing to an over-the-top publicity machine that peaked with Billboard writing 4 'articles' in one day about him. He is a talented, in many ways beautiful young man, but "Harry Styles" leads you to believe he has done nothing to earn all of this attention, and is doing nothing to keep it. Is that not a complete tragedy if you are truly a talented person? The best popstars (even 'rockstars', which is what he is trying to be) say *something* even if that 'something' is just a good time. He has nothing to say you haven't already heard, and I don't think you will remember what it is he has said when he is through.

On The Ariana Grande Concert Terrorist Attack

From The Desk Of Jakob Musıck: Secretary-General of Nothing
May 23 2017 (Savonarola executed)
4 Prairial an 225 de la Révolution
Year Juche 106

*

On The Ariana Grande Concert Terrorist Attack

I write today’s editorial with the greatest sadness in my heart over (of course) another senseless attack on civilians. Every life matters and everyone is important. Human life is equal. That is something that a number of ideologies can agree upon, thankfully. But, for me, as well as many die-hard pop musick fans, this attack meant something more-- building upon the sense of insecurity that the assassination of Christina Grimmie and the attack on the Pulse dance-club that happened just miles from where I am composing this. Unfortunately, as the world woke up this morning, we learned that the deaths were in the double-digits, some of them children. The youngest confirmed death I had heard was 8 years-old. From what the police of Greater Manchester, UK have released thus-far, we know that there was an explosive which was detonated about 2-5 minutes after the final end of the concert. This led to pandemonium. The killer reportedly died with his weapon, although the police arrested another man.

This is one of several nefarious sides to acts meant to cause terror: They de-stabilize the very foundations of social life. Things that are routine are no longer routine anymore. It makes everyone think twice about themselves in large crowds. It will make countless people extra-conscious when attending concerts. It could be about a larger assault on Western Culture, although some have said it was just where he could kill the most people on that night, as the stadium is a massive venue.

Most tragic of all is, the age of many of those who had the misfortune of being present at this concert. Yes, a small number were killed, but a much larger number are still here with us, traumatized and paralyzed with fear. Nobody should go to a pop concert and have to think about whether they will return that night. This is even more true for children and teenagers. For some, this concert in Manchester was their chance to see an idol. For some, it may have been their first time going out to a big event on their own. A user on Popjustice remarked on the makeup of the Dublin concert just days before the Manchester event, that it was composed mostly of young children and their parents. To think that there were children who just had the time of their lives, feeling the high of seeing on-stage magic, and then just seconds later being exploded to their death is a violent thought in and of itself.

For many, myself included, popular musick is and has been a life-line, particularly in the sensitive years of puberty and high school. For devoted fans, these popstars are our gods and goddesses; they are larger than life. The only possible thing that we can take heartened from the deaths of these concert-goers is that hopefully they were able to fully enjoy seeing one of their favourite people before their lives were cut short. For the kids and teens of today, I have read and will repeat here, Ariana is akin to Madonna or Britney Spears. And of Ariana-- can you imagine having to deal with the fact that 20 people died after coming to see you?

Time is needed in these incidents before we publicly begin to draw political judgements and make commentaries upon the implications of such things. If this is indeed the work of Islamic State, as the Caliphate has claimed, than it will cause us again, the West, collectively to try to advance our cause against them. But for now, while we know barely anything beyond the nationality of the man who was alleged to have done this, (Libyan) speech such as the disgraceful television presenter Piers Morgan demanding of Soap stars the morning after the attack that they, as non-Muslims, should demand of the masses of Muslims try to reform their community. The television stars were rightly shocked that Morgan would bring it up so soon (we know he is Arab, but not *all* Arabs are Muslim; it is likely, but not something that was in circulation to my knowledge at the time) and try to make political hay of it. Same with the equally disgraceful Sun magazine using the event to level attacks on the Bourgeois “Labour” party over their positions. In short, the death of children at a pop concert is already being used politically, which makes sense in a way, as terrorism is inherently political in most cases. But speaking so soon, with so much left unknown is rash and we should not do that. I have spoken privately to family about what I think may have happened, or whom was behind it, but that would irresponsible to distribute because we simply do not know enough yet.

We do know enough to understand how tragic this event is, how tragic it was for life-- both young and old to die at the site of enchantment and wonder, how tragic it was for so many traumas created yesterday, how many lives will be affected, people who will now suffer survivor’s guilt, anxiety disorders, panic attacks, and PTSD. How tragic it was that a site of fun and fancy (pop concerts) that are havens for, stereotypically, younger girls and gays, sites similar to Gay bars and theme parks where (sometimes) anything seems possible makes this doubly sad. For pop fans, it truly does feel like an attack on us. Many others have said this, and I understand it may sound completely narcissistic given the circumstances, but even with each having their own favourite-- online and offline -- we form an obsessive community where we watch, listen to, and talk about new things everyday. These commercial works of art mark the times of our lives-- as we first started to buy musick, and then grow up, through our teen years, and become adults, face the worst times of our lives, and hopefully the best. For some budding pop fans, they will never get this chance to have a decade or more of pop fandom. Their timeline was cut short. I have no doubt that this will change the way things are run, though I don’t know how. It is worth it to remember that the much-vaunted ‘concert disaster’ of The Who, resulted in about half the deaths we are speaking of today.

Sometimes events are just absorbed into your subconscious, when your conscious mind has a less-strong reaction or cannot react at all. Today, reading through the threads of pop fans, some who had attended Manchester, some who were planning to go to future concerts, some who had taken their children to concerts like these, and teachers who witnessed their students shook-- reading their stories repeatedly caused my mind to go numb, but my feelings ached in deep sympathetic pain. We live in an age where every day is filled with less and less innocence.  If I was of a young age, attending perhaps my first concert, I saw one of my idols performing and then immediately witnessed a mass-tragedy, my life would have been irrevocably split between the ‘before’ and ‘after.’ I imagine that is how many children, teens, and adults are beginning to live today.

We may have our different faves; we may participate in feuds and drag each other through the dirt on occasion even being fundamentalist about our devotion to our artists when we know they are wrong/bad, but today the Pop stans are united in their solidarity and revulsion at the innocence they have stolen from these victims, and from our community. There is ‘news’ everyday in this pop world; rarely will any of it be of consequence in 40 years, not less the next week. But this event will go down in infamy, as when the seemingly distant struggles of the political world befell the innocence of the pop world, and forced us into engagement with the outside world.

I would like to end this post by sharing this image. This is a picture of the first victim named as dead from the attack, meeting her idol Ariana Grande in 2015.

Rest in Peace