Introduction

Written by:
Reid Funston
Isaiah Sirois
Junior Contributors:
Jaden Lessnick
McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled.-Joseph McCarthy

Strategic Recommendations

Contention one is pronounced yebat' rossiyu

The generic K card is really, REALLY, good, like probably better than Sarah Palin
The specific cede the political cards are pretty good on the neg. 10/10 would cut again
The anthro link isnt specific to satire but that doesnt mean its a bad argument to go for
If you want to be funnier, throw in some cards from the 1AC supplement
The cap cards were actually the inspiration for the aff theyre decent and you could frame a 1AC
around consumption instead of security if you really wanted. I guess. \_()_/
Have fun running this aff. Stay gold!

Explanation of the af
This is functionally a security aff, contextualized to hyperbolic impacts in debate.
While it looks like a massive joke in the 1AC (mostly because it is) in the 2AC it turns
into a serious aff- despite all the tags in the childrens literature contention making
no sense, it functions as a solvency contention for the ability of this aff to

deconstruct securitized debate practices. As such, for the 2AC Id recommend

writing out/memorizing the warrants of the cards because the tags arent really
useful.
We didnt want to re-turn out impacts to cap and consumption, but you can take
those out of other files and use them- the aff also functions as a k of
consumption/cap, the internal links are in the cap block
For the neg- I know theres a cap K link in here, but in hindsight a cap/consumption
good K might be a better option- its pretty much directly responsive (the link is the
all the oils! contention)

1AC

Contention #1 is All the Oils!

DRILL BABY DRILL!
Theres oil in the oceans lets drill! It will boost our AMERICA!
Magnoliazz, 10 a writer living on a tree farm in Wisconsin. She has 5 dogs, a
flock of sheep, and operates a cat, guinea pig and rabbit rescue. (America Has
More Oil Than Saudi Arabia, HubPages.com,
http://magnoliazz.hubpages.com/hub/America-Has-More-Oil-Than-Saudi-Arabia)//IS
We Need To Start Drlling NOW! The United States has plenty of oil within US
borders. We don't have to rely on foreign oil anymore! It is just a matter of drilling
and getting the oil out. The oil is there! Remember the song...."America, America
God shed his grace on thee"? It is true! God provided this country with more
than enough oil for generations to come. Did you know... There is a massive 200
billion barrel oil field located in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. And it
even gets better! Because of new horizontal drilling technology, it is estimated that
this huge field may even produce up to 500 billion barrels of oil! The Saudi's are
estimated to have only 260 billion barrels of oil, clearly putting America in the cat
bird seat! http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html But
the good news does not stop there! Alaska is just waiting to drill for oil. In fact the
governor of Alaska is suing the government for failing to drill for oil. Alaskan oil
fields are massive. At Gull Island, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, there is enough oil and
natural gas to keep America going for the next 200 years! Yes, for the next 200
years! http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm There is even better news! The
US Outer Continental Shelf has 112 billion barrels of oil, not to mention a whopping
656 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas! WHY are people struggling to pay winter
heating bills when we have natural resources like this?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1424734/us_should_drill_for_oil_and_gas_in_
arctic_offshore Oil shale is abundant in the US. In fact, half of all the earth's oil shale
deposits are located within 150 miles of Grand Junction, Colorado! Shell Oil is
working on new technology which will make oil shale extraction financially feasible.
They plan to open a shale oil plant in 2010. It will provide a piece of the puzzle
toward energy independence for the United States.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010373.pdf Then of course, just about everyone knows that the United States is the
Saudi Arabia of coal. With 275 billon tons of coal! We have more coal than just
about any other place in the world. Enough coal for American needs for the next
250 years! Once again, new technology is underway to make coal burning safe for
our environment. http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/faqs.html#howmuch
So there we have it! It is time for the US to get serious about energy independence
and drill for oil. The

environmentalists should move

to China and India where pollution is really is out of control. With the new
technology used in the oil fields of today, the impact on the environment is there
but it is controlled. With environmental controls oil fields can be environmentally

safe. When it comes to the environment we need to understand that as long as

there are billions of people living on this planet, there will to be a negative impact
on the environment. That is just the way it is unless billions of people die, and even
then environmentalists would complain about rotting corpses creating a problem for
the environment. There is simply no way around problems with the environment
when you have billons of people to contend with. The human race needs to protect
this planet, yet we have to live too. Living without energy is not an option.
Until we have plentiful, green energy we will have to rely on the oil based solutions
of old. It will take time to convert to green energy and that quest is just as
important as drilling for oil is now. We can't let the ball drop in either arena.
Obviously we should have been exploring our oil supplies 10 years ago. Now it will
take at least 2 years before oil and then gas will come back down to a livable price
for most Americans. 80% of all Americans claim climbing gas prices are affecting
their lives in a very negative way. And is it no wonder! Food prices go up every time
a barrel of oil reaches a new high. Add to all of this are the flood woes of the
Midwest which will mean even higher food prices yet to come. This winter will be
especially tough for most people as they struggle to heat their homes with the
highest projected heating costs of all time, and if that is not enough, they will be hit
with unaffordable food prices, making it harder than ever to put food on the table
for the family. This is not the America I know, or want to know. Whoever wants to be
the next president can easily get elected if they take the bull by the horns, and start
drilling! We need to open the US oil fields in Alaska, Montana, and North and South
Dakota as soon as possible. And, once we have that oil flowing all across America,

we can tell the Middle East what to do

with their oil. For too

long we danced to their tune. It was degrading to both President Bush and
Americans across the country when he went begging to the Saudi's, hat in hand,
pleading for increased oil production, which the Saudi's denied. No American
president should ever have to go through that again, especially when we have
billions of barrels of oil right in our own back yard. The next few years will be a time
of financial hardship, but once American oil becomes available, it will not take long
for the economy to turn around. This time of austerity is beneficial in a way,
because it forces us to seek new and better ways to do things. And, new and better
ways of doing things.....well that is a lot of what this country is all about! In the face
of adversity, we will prevail and prosper in the end!

We can do it!

God Bless America!

Without oil civilization collapses! We need security!
Connors-Maloney, 12 Oklahoma 1st Congressional District Coordinator
Oklahomas 1st District Coordinator (Annie, 02/16/12 I Resist Our Dependence on
Foreign Oil - Drill Here, Drill Now,
http://patriotaction.net/group/iresistourdependenceonforeignoildrillheredrillnow)//IS

This group was developed to help dispel the myth created by many of our
government officials and environmentalists regarding the production of oil within
the boundaries of our own country and in it's designated waters. Drilling oil in our
country is crucial to our National security. This site is for discussion about what is
going on within our government designed to further our descent into a third world
country and promoting our dependence on other governments by disallowing the
production of oil for our own needs. We need to find a way to get spread the truth to
more people and move our government officials along the path of independence of
foreign oil. It would be appreciated if you keep your posts in context to the subject
of this group. Anything pertaining to the energy field, bills within your state or the
federal government that are coming up in regard to energy, or your own comments
about anything that you have knowledge of pertaining to energy. Any other posts
will be removed. Petroleum is vital to many industries, and is of importance to the
maintenance of industrialized civilization itself, and thus is a critical concern for
many nations. Oil accounts for a large percentage of the worlds energy
consumption, ranging from a low of 32% for Europe and Asia, up to a high of 53%
for the Middle East. Other geographic regions consumption patterns are as follows:
South and Central America (44%), Africa (41%), and North America (40%). The
world consumes 30 billion barrels (4.8 km) of oil per year, with developed nations
being the largest consumers. 24% of the oil produced in 2004 was consumed in the
United States.The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken
as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value. It is the
number one major contributor to keeping our economy in this country running. If
the oil industry fails, so will our nations economy. My Own Needs to Dispel the Myth
I have worked for 35 years in the oil industry. I am the fifth generation in my family
to be in the oil business. I am a geophysicist and my job was finding oil. The US has
so much oil off of it's shores, in ANWR and in the areas of the Chukchi, Bering and
Beaufort Seas, and in the Arctic Ocean that we could make it on our own for more
than 100 years. I have seen the maps. Congress is preventing us from drilling for
many reasons. Among them are the protection of the polar bears, the seals and
much of the wildlife in those seas. While I am an animal lover, and would never do
anything to harm an animal, I do believe that people come first. As I originally
specialized in Environmental Safety in the Oil Industry, and was among those
specialists who helped with the Valdez spill, I know that they oil companies hire
people who are educated, know what they are doing, and do everything that is
possible to protect the environment of the seas and lands where we find oil deposits
and drill. I also know that much of the propaganda is just that. I have never seen a
polar bear or a seal struggling to find polar ice. I could tell you stories, show you
pictures, and I know because I have been there. Please remember the myth of the
Alaska Pipeline. That it would ruin the environment and keep animals from
migrating. In fact the opposite is true, and many of the animals collect, in the
coldest parts of the winter, beneath the warmth of the pipeline. It is a sight to
behold. My goal is and always has been to clear up the lies, and get the word out
that oil companies are for the people (I know they make a profit, but that is what
America stands for - capitalism), against pollution (accidents happen everywhere,
even in our own homes), and working hard to make our country less dependent on
foreign oil.

We need oil independence its key to SECURITY, HEGEMONY,

and MUH FREEDOMS!
Powers, 10 some person who wrote for CNN (Jonathan, Independence from
Dependence (on oil), CNN,
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2010/07/independence-fromdependence-o.html)//IS
Oil poses a clear threat to Americas economic and national security. This
spring we have watched as untold millions of gallons of oil flowed into the Gulf. But
for years, we have watched as billions of dollars flowed to hostile nations to pay for
oil. Every day, we send well over a billion dollars out of this country to pay for oil
money that could and should be used to grow our economy and create jobs. The
simple fact is that our dependence on oil from nations in the Middle East and other
regions constrains our choices, hamstringing Americas flexibility and choices on

Too often, we are forced to consider the

impact our foreign policy will have on our oil supply instead of
the world stage.

whether a choice is in line with our values. Every day, we make a clear choice
between living up to those values (and strengthening our security) and prolonging
our weakness as a dirty-energy nation. Today, thousands of Americans are calling

freedom from oil a dangerous, dirty and vulnerable source of

energy. This week, 10,000 American flags were
planted on the National Mall, each representing Americans
for a new

who have pledged to free our nation from a long and damaging cycle of
dependence.

MUH FREEDOMS ARE A D-RULE

Petro, Wake Forest Professor in Toledo Law Review, 1974
(Sylvester, Spring, page 480)

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one
thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is
seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say
that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have
been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to

chaos,

tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration.

Ask
Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme
value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual

and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically

identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Heg is the best ever thing ever!

Khalilzad, 1995 analyst at the RAND Corporation (Zalmay, Washington
Quarterly, Spring, lexis)//IS

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global
rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and
vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because

a world in which the United States

exercises leadership would

have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more

open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world

have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems,
such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and
low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another
hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global
would

cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including

nuclear exchange

a global

. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global

stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Seriously, its key to all the power!

Herschinger 12 lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the
University of the Armed Forces Munich, Germany
(Eva, Hell Is the Other: Conceptualising Hegemony and Identity through Discourse Theory, Millennium - Journal
of International Studies September 2012 vol. 41 no. 1 65-90, dml)

Many IR-poststructuralists share with discourse theorists crucial commitments most importantly, a specific

language does not merely

reflect reality but constructs reality: by speaking, something is done, for instance, in
betting, giving a promise or naming a ship. 23 Thus, a material reality of course exists;
however, there is no objective or true meaning beyond linguistic
representations. 24 Discourse is conceived in analogy, as it is constitutive for the construction of
understanding of language, discourse and the role of contingency. To start with,

knowledge and the constitution of objects. While there are different notions of discourse, the Essex School
conceptualises discourse as a structured totality, 25 a system of meaningful practices, which relates differences to

the meanings and the identities of objects and

subjects are formed through a system of practices embodied by discourse. These
practices are routinised forms of human and societal reproduction, which are material and
articulatory at the same time, since human beings constantly engage in the process of
linking together different elements of their social lives in these continuous and
projective sequences of human action. 26
establish their meaning. In other words,

This constant process of linking hints at the role of contingency in the Essex School. Although being defined as a

discourse is a structure penetrated by contingency and temporality, marked by

because the relation between differences can constantly change
and meaning is organised differently. Attempts to fix meaning around closed
structures are in vain: neither absolute fixity nor absolute non-fixity is possible. 27 However, to allow
for identity and social formation, the Essex School argues that meaning needs to be partially
fixed; that is, partial fixations bind the very flow of differences temporally. Such fixations are achieved as any
totality,

ruptures and breaches

discourse situates itself as an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity 28 and subjects search for a
constitutive decision articulating social meaning in one way rather than another. With regard to international

such conceptualisations of language, discourse

and contingency imply, on the one hand, that these policies are based on specific, contingent
linguistic representations of the security problem they want to address and on
specific, partially fixed constructions of Self and Other . On the other hand, these linguistic
representations fuel the actions of the respective countermeasures by making them
intelligible and legitimate. This is what I mean by conceptualising practices to be articulatory and material
counter-terrorist policies and drug prohibition measures,

at the same time.

In the Essex School, hegemony is conceptualised against this background inasmuch as it builds
on Gramscis claim that the articulation of collective wills takes place in the midst of political struggles within state,
economy and civil society. For Gramsci, hegemony is the genuine political moment marked by an ideological

Hegemony is no longer confined

to the attempt to form a political alliance but aims at the total fusion of different objectives ,
struggle which tries to unify economic, political and intellectual objectives. 29

involving the creation of a collective will. The latter is forged via an ideological struggle which, according to Mouffe,
is a process of disarticulation-rearticulation of given ideological elements in a struggle between two hegemonic
principles to appropriate these elements. 30

hegemony is a discursive phenomenon produced through specific relations

of forces. Typically, these relations articulated in hegemonic practices organise the
discursive space by drawing boundaries and creating identities . In the Essex School context,
As such,

such shaping of the discursive terrain is encompassed by the logic of equivalence. While discursive elements are
per se different, the logic of equivalence produces equivalential differences. To explain: a,b,c are equivalent with
regard to something identical underlying them all; thus, a,b,c are equivalent (But not identical!) with respect to z.
This something identical is termed the general equivalent. 31 By contrast, the logic of difference
encompasses the opposite movement as it extenuates the equivalential ties between elements, that is, it

disperses hegemonic formations and disintegrates current identities . The logic relates
discursive elements while preserving their difference indeed, difference makes them conceivable as elements: a is
different from b,b from c and so on. Still, both logics cannot do with or without each other, as a certain degree of
difference is conditional to establish equivalential chains. One is diluted by what the other is trying to fix, but none
of the logics dominates a discourse completely as only partial fixations are possible. 32

it is necessary to establish a link between hegemony and

the articles relational concept of identity, which states that in the process of identity
construction, a Self and corresponding Other(s) are created . While the terminology of a Self
Yet, to pursue my argument further,

is rarely employed in the Essex School context, (which rather speaks of the subject), ties with the relational
conceptualisation of identity in IR-poststructuralism are obvious when Laclau claims that [t]here is no way that a

part of the
definition of its own identity is the construction of a complex and elaborated system
of relations with other groups. 33 This clearly resonates with the IR-poststructuralist thought of
particular group living in a wider community can live a monadic existence on the contrary,

difference being a requirement built into the logic of identity. 34 However, IR-poststructuralism has expended some

speaking of Self and antagonistic Other(s) captures only half

the story since the antagonistic Other is often situated within a more complicated
set of identities. 35 Identity construction produces varying degrees of otherness and does not necessarily
depend upon a juxtaposition to a radically threatening Other. 36 Still, the treatment of antagonistic and
non-antagonistic Others involves some combination of hierarchy, eradication,
energy trying to outline that

assimilation or expulsion and in the moment of a blocked identity the self might be
driven by the desire to move from a relationship of mutuality and interdependence
to one of autonomy and dominance. 37 These dynamics show that in IR-poststructuralism,
identities are fragmented and can only be partially fixed: identity does not signal that stable core of the self,

the
discursive nature of identity always allows for alternative constructions against
which other identity notions are protected and defended : identities are subject to constant
unfolding from the beginning to end through all the vicissitudes of history without change. 38 On the contrary,

(re)writing in the sense of inscribing a particular meaning so as to render more permanent that which is originally
contingent. 39
By taking into account these congruent conceptualisations of identity being based on difference in the Essex School

hegemonies are about creating a collective

Self juxtaposed to its antagonistic Other, that is, that which the Self deems culpable
of blocking its desired identity. 40 Central to this claim are the operations of the logic of
and IR-poststructuralism, I argue that international

equivalence: modelling the discursive topography by outlining what a number of elements have in common and
drawing frontiers goes hand in hand with separating a discursive space into at least two diametrically opposed
entities. In hegemonic relations, the identities constructed are distinct from identities emerging in other contexts

Identity construction in the context of

hegemonies is a process soaked in power, since the entities created by the logic of
equivalence are separated by an antagonistic frontier and are constructed as
antagonistic camps. Thus, the logic makes reference to an us them axis : two or more
elements can be substituted for each other with reference to a common negation or threat. 42 Indeed, the joint
project that the logic of equivalence links elements into consists of countering a common enemy
in order to achieve the vision of a world which is blocked by the presence of the
Other. According to the articles conceptualisation of hegemony and identity, this is when a Self and an
Other are created by outlining that elements are not equivalent in terms of sharing a positive property but
in terms of having a common enemy. And as this Self considers its identity as blocked by the
Other, the latter appears to be responsible for the failure of the Self to achieve its
full identity. The point is not that the Self is nothing because it cannot be a full presence of itself. Rather,
the political actions of the Self will be shaped by the idea that the annihilation of
the enemy will permit the Self to become the fully constituted identity it seeks to
be. 43 A typical assertion in this respect would be: if we only eliminated terrorism, the
world would be a peaceful and safe place. .
(for instance, between cooperation partners). 41

Its not like drilling hurts the environment

Unconfirmed Sources, no date (Sarah Palin To Host Nature Show,
Unconfirmed Sources http://unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=4327)//IS
Nature lover Sarah Palin and Discovery Communications announced today that she
will be hosting a new TV series called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in which she will
challenge antiquated notions such as Global warming, promote oil drilling as being
beneficial to the environment and discuss how to stop polar bears from being listed
as endangered species. "Oil drilling doesn't cause any problem with the animals or
the environment", Palin stated. "I love to watch the furry little animals scurry away
into the woods as we start setting up the drilling equipment!" Palin insists the
animals all find alternate dwelling places that are even nicer than the holes they live
in now. She also insisted that even with oil drilling there will be "plenty of places for
furry animals to live and frolic". Palin also revealed that Alaska is just as cold as it

ever was and global warming is a myth. "There were times this past winter when
we couldn't even go outside it was so cold!" Palin lamented. " If people think there's
global warming just let them come to Alaska for a winter!" Palin insisted that polar
bears be removed from the list of endangered animals because "they are all
over the place! You can't go to an iceberg without seeing bunches of them!"
"Besides", "Palin continued. "Polar bears eat people! We don't want nasty bears
eating nice people!"

Warming isnt even real if it was, Id like it!

Connors-Maloney, 12 Oklahoma 1st Congressional District Coordinator
Oklahomas 1st District Coordinator (Annie, 02/16/12 I Resist Our Dependence on
Foreign Oil - Drill Here, Drill Now,
http://patriotaction.net/group/iresistourdependenceonforeignoildrillheredrillnow)//IS
Science has now proven the following very important points:
* CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. It is a friendly trace gas necessary for all life.
* Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.
* 96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.

Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you

die.
*

* CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.

* Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.
* Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
* Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.
* The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.
* Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years,
thanks to CO2.
* Increasing CO2 yields larger

food

crops. This is beneficial to a growing

population.
* The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.
* Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.
* Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all
life.
* Many scientists believe we are on the brink of another ice age.

* When the planet warms and cools it is purely due to the sun. Not

your car.
* Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.
* Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than
anything in modern times.
* There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact
opposite.
The list goes on and on, supported by NASA data, weather satellites, and much of
the meteorological and scientific world.

Contention #2 is (yebat' rossiyu)

WOLVERINES!
The Russians are coming the Russians are coming! Theyre evil
and want to kill us
Nyquist no date (J.R., no date, former Russia analyst for the DOD and all around smart guy, Russia's
Disruptive Role, http://www.jrnyquist.com/Russia_s_Disruptive_Role.html)//RTF
On Sunday I spoke with Polish journalist Tomasz Pompowski, who wanted to give me an update on events in Europe.

Russia, he said, was promoting economic and

political instability. Russias role is not generally understood, he explained, but
whenever you look behind a little, you see the Russians. You see former KGB
people. The game appears to involve businesses, including media businesses but especially the energy
business. The Russians make a great deal of money by exporting gas and oil. It also
appears they have a special strategy for dealing with their competition. The peaceful
siesta after the collapse of the Berlin Wall was deceptive, said Pompowski. The Russians, he explained,
made use of the Arab world in order to cause problems and play games with future
energy prices. If you talk to KGB dissidents, he said, they will tell you that the most important research
The picture he painted was not entirely pleasant.

department in the KGB was that devoted to Arabic language, culture and Islam, going back since before the
invasion of Afghanistan. The Arabs and the Iranian Muslims control a very considerable part of global energy

If trouble can be stirred up within these countries, or between countries,

then Russia will get more money for its energy exports . For example, the political
production.

destabilization of Saudi Arabia could be very profitable for Russia. At present, encouraging Iranian nuclear

Russia is also
making economic moves into Europe and Israel. Russian tycoons are buying up
ambitions, with the attending sanctions on Iran, may also lead to higher Russian profits.

the Israeli media, he said. Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch is under attack just as he was
starting to invest in Eastern Europe. Pompowski pointed to the fact that Murdochs rival in
the United Kingdom is former Soviet KGB officer Alexander Lebedev, who owns
the Evening Standard and is buying Murdochs News of the World which was closed down
three weeks ago in the wake of a scandal in which News of the World was found by British police to have hacked the

When
I asked Pompowski why the Russian operatives would block Murdoch in Eastern
Europe while taking over his outlets in Britain, he explained: I believe Moscow has
to put down the alternative voices. Why would this be necessary? Moscow is trying to split
off Europe from America through the agency of anti-American active measures .
phone calls of nearly 4,000 people, including members of the Royal family. Look at that, said Pompowski.

Murdochs media outlets represent an obstacle to such an effort. The late Gen. Odom believed that the Soviet
Union transformed itself into these different entities, noted Pompowski. Now the NATO states have to understand
this new complex of power, and they must take notice. The danger, said Pompowski, is that Russia may damage
and destabilize the structures established after the Second World War, which were part of the Western security
system. The official Russian policy is to create a new security architecture for Europe. This translates as Europe

the
bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Georgia last year was carried out by Russian GRU
officer Maj. Yevgeny Borisov, and was coordinated by Russian military intelligence.
without NATO that is to say, Europe dominated by Russia. Pompowski also spoke of revelations that

Why would Russian military officials order an attack against a U.S. Embassy? I believe the Russian state is
completely in disarray, Pompowski explained. There are several criminal powers within the state, all acting along

Russia is a rogue state. It is completely a rogue

state. The idea is that Russia is caught between nationalist, communist, mafia and
ersatz-Orthodox Christian power blocs. Yet all the various internal Russian power
different lines. I think in the end they are lost.

groups share a similar perspective when it comes to America. Have you seen the report on
the visit of the Russian ambassador to NATO with members of Congress? asked Pompowski. Ambassador
Rogozin met with Senators Kyl and Kirk on Tuesday or Thursday, and he called them
monsters of the Cold War. Pompowski also spoke of the ersatz-Christian Norwegian terrorist,
Anders Bhering Breivik, who was allegedly trained earlier this year at a secret
paramilitary field camp in Belarus (a former Soviet republic currently defended by the Russian military
and used as a conduit for exporting crime, drugs, weapons and perhaps even terrorists). Supposedly,
Breivik visited Minsk last spring. There is a discussion of Russian links with this
tragedy in Norway, said Pompowski. The information is growing all the time. Breiviks code name within
the Belarus KGB was allegedly Viking, though his connection to Russia is unproven, his praise for Putin and the
Russian political system is coincident with his disgust for the soft, politically correct democracies of Western Europe
and Scandinavia. I asked Tomasz about the idea that somebody in Moscow has been pushing Right Wing extremism
in Europe. I am close to this theory, Pompowski responded. But you cannot find in this a homogeneous Russian
goal. There is no one in control of the Russian state. It is a conglomerate of different states. Of course, support for
Slavic nationalism is nothing new, he explained. They were behind the nationalism of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia,
for example. The Russians are involved in many manipulations, some of them established under Gorbachev or
earlier. According to Pompowski, the tendency of these manipulations is to destabilize the West, to bring higher
energy prices and to foster extremism. The Russian military has indeed been fostering a movement in Europe,
acknowledged Pompowski. Unlike the militaries of the West, they had a department of military philosophy placed
high up within the strategic command system. These people claimed to be Russian Orthodox, but the majority of
the Russian Orthodox leadership had their origins within the KGB. Under the Soviet Union you had to get through

I
asked Pompowski about the release of an independent report on the tragic air crash
that killed the Polish president last year as he traveled to mark the 60th anniversary
the Katyn Forest massacre where thousands of Polish military officers were
slaughtered by the Soviets in 1940. He described how Russian officials hindered
Polish investigators of the air crash, denying them access to aircraft wreckage,
onboard voice recordings and more. In summing up, Pompowski translated a line from Polish poet
the KGB to rise as a priest. Now these people are given a free hand, and are still involved in KGB strategies.

Zbigniew Herbert, which was used in the report, and which had to do with the Katyn massacre. And do not forgive
And you are not entitled to forgive On behalf of those who are betrayed. It is an apt three lines which the entire
world should commit to memory, especially as the number of those betrayed is bound to grow.

Seriously though, Russians are bullies

Roussel and Fossum 10- Stphane Roussel is professor in the department of
political science at the Universit du Qubec Montral and Canada Research Chair
in Canadian foreign and defence policy. John Erik Fossum is professor of political
science with the ARENA Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo and
vice president of the Nordic Association for Canadian Studies, (The Arctic is Hot
Again in America and Europe: Introduction to Part I, December 2010,
http://ijx.sagepub.com/content/65/4/799.citation//nemo)
Hnnelands examination of the Russian-Norwegian pattern of cooperation opens the door for a closer look at
Russias approach to the Arctic. In western capitals, and especially in Ottawa, Russians are depicted as aggressive,
ambitious, and greedy. But the contributors to this issue offer a much more nuanced portrait. First, Ekaterina
Piskunova explores the idea that Russia is conducting a foreign policy that is consistent with the notion of soft
balancing, which means a limited military buildup and security understanding among actors, combined with
preventive strategies as well as nonmilitary tools, to discourage, delay, or dismantle unilateral aggressive policies
by another great power (852). Russia has clear interests in the Arctic, especially with regard to energy, and
defending these interests is a central concern for Moscow, demonstrated in its pattern of actions and reactions. But,
as Piskunova notes, its actions remain within the limits of the existing institutional and legal framework. Indra

verland
stresses how western perceptions have been shaped by underlying
security considerations that may best be understood as leftovers from the
verland addresses Russias Arctic strategyand western perceptions of itin the energy field.

Cold War period, an image he notes is largely reflected in the more

jingoistic parts of the Russian media. verland instead underlines the many important
similarities between the Russian approach and that of western countries, such as Norway. What might set
Russia apart, however, is the proportion of Russian gas (80 percent) and oil (70 percent) that is
located in the Arctic parts of Russia. A significant proportion of these resources is located
offshore, where Russia lacks experience. The sheer size of the fields suggests that
the more Russia wants to develop them, the greater will be its reliance on foreign
capital and technology. At the same time, there is still a strong element of Russian
resource nationalism, and Russia has a tendency to consider energy to be a
strategic asset. This is also partly reflected in different Russian models for the inclusion of foreign companies:
exploration of the Shtokman field has been more inclusive than exploration in Yamal. How Russia prioritizes
these two Arctic petroleum regions will shed important light on its openness to
international companies. One of the interesting conclusions raised by verland is that western
commentators also tend to overlook similarities between the Russian approach and the approaches of their own
countries to the Arctic (866). These words are a good introduction to P. Whitney Lackenbauers article. The author

Realist analysts
inject a certain Cold War mentality into the debate when they point to a resurgent
Russia as a major threat, a Russia that is heavily committed to Arctic involvement
and development. Russia fuels this perception through its belligerent and
aggressive rhetoric, which is picked up in Canada and mirrored in the Canadian
debate. At the same time, Lackenbauer insists that confrontational Russian rhetoric is really mainly intended for
takes as his point of departure that the Arctic is a topic of growing geostrategic importance.

its domestic audience, because Moscow also continues to emphasize that it is committed to abiding by international

Russia is sending mixed messages. The same pattern also applies to Canada, which is also
sending mixed messages. An important observation is that this hard-line rhetoric serves
the cause of those seeking to increase military spending and the securitization of
the north. This is also taking place in both countries, and Canada finds itself cast in the unfamiliar role as a
law.

catalyst for militarizing the region, staging Cold War-style exercises just like the Russians (892). The situation has
a clear ring to it of the liberal security dilemma, where both parties misperceive each others intentions and, in
striving to be defensively secure, cause others to perceive their actions as threatening (893). At the same time,
the fact that both countries are not only committed to complying with international law but actually demonstrate
compliance in their behaviour goes to show that the potential for conflict is lower than one might infer from the
many abrasive statements on both sides.

The mixed messaging nevertheless carries the risk

that the situation could spiral out of control. Lackenbauer, as do several other contributors
to this issue, suggests that it is important to maintain a broader perspective on the
discourse. It is also important to keep in mind that there are clear beneficiaries from securitization and
increased interstate tensions, and that these are generally not the inhabitants of the region. If these authors
add important nuance to the image of the bad guy or the troublemaker that
westerners tend to see in Russia, those dealing with Canada question Ottawas image as the good
guy. In his brief yet incisive overview of the central issues and challenges pertaining to the north, Michael Byers
underlines how the Arctic figured centrally in the Cold War and how the end of the Cold War and global climate
change have increased cooperation among the main actors there. He further notes that cooperation has generally
improved more in non-security than in security matters, where the Cold War divide remains a difficult issue to
settle, although the Obama administration has taken measures to improve relations. There are hardly any disputes
over land, with the exception of Hans Island; the important differences are over maritime boundaries and shipping
routes. All the states are committed to work within an existing framework of international law to delimit their
respective areas of jurisdiction over the seabed (900). At the same time, the Arctic coastal states are set to test
the scope of their rights over an extended continental shelf under the UNCLOS provisions. There are efforts in place
to map the seabed, for instance, in the Beaufort Sea, which pit Canadians against Americans. Byers points to the
fact that with increased access, todays security challenges involve non-state actors (smugglers, gunrunners, illegal
immigrants, and even terrorists) in the Northwest Passage, the northern sea route, and the Barents, Greenland,
Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas. The proliferation security initiative is a cooperative mechanism set up to deal
with these threats. Byers ends by noting that contentious issues have been dealt with through international law,
which has prevented a race for Arctic resources.

Specifically Putin is an evil pinko communist

Bikermog 08 (Bikermog, sometime 6 years ago according to yahoo answers, preferred answerer on yahoo
answers, Is Vladimir Putin a communist?, https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20081226134641AAO7a3v)//RTF

Is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB spy, a communist? I also ask

considering how he has arrested and murdered journalists by the tens of hundreds, and
rigs elections. He also called the collapse of the Soviet Union a "catastrophe." Do you
think its possible a new USSR comes up in the next decade? Best AnswerAsker's Choice bikermog
answered 6 years ago if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, why
would anyone think it was a girafe? of course he's a communist .
Is Vladimir Putin a communist?

Asker's rating & comment 5 out of 5

Hes even trying to over the world, and even worse, AMERICA!
Trinko 3/18

(Katarina, 3/18/14, managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today's Board of

Contributors,
Putin Is Launching a New Version of the Evil Empire. What the U.S. Needs to Do Now,
http://dailysignal.com/2014/03/18/putin-launching-new-version-evil-empire-u-s-needs-now/)//RTF
Today Russian president Vladimir

of Russia.

Putin announced that he would make Crimea officially part

Crimea, which is currently part of Ukraine, had a forced referendum Saturday.

Vladimir

Putin is launching a new version of the evil empire

that Ronald
Reagan resisted decades earlier, observes Nile Gardiner, director of The Heritage Foundations
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. The United States and the free world must resist
Putins ugly power grab. Putins attempt to annex the Crimea is only the beginning of his imperial
ambitions, Gardiner warned. This is likely a precursor to Russia seizing the whole of Ukraine. If Putin
succeeds in taking the Ukraine, he will have his eyes set on the Baltic states as his next likely conquest.
Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the hearts and minds of people, Putin told Russian politicians
today, according to the New York Times. That faith has been preserved and passed on from generation to
generation. Gardiner wrote this weekend on how the United States should respond to Putins aggressive actions:
President Putin should be told in no uncertain terms that there will be an immediate price to be paid for enacting his
imperial ambitions, beginning with

the immediate

U.S.

withdrawal from the hugely flawed New START

Treaty and the swift implementation of targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of financial assets,
against any Russian official or private citizen (including the oligarchs that surround the Kremlin) involved in
aggression against Ukraine or in human rights violations on the ground. The Magnitsky Act, passed by Congress in
2012, should be applied without mercy against Russias ruling elites, who have been instrumental in keeping Putins
brutal regime in power. A hard-line sanctions policywith real teeth and not just empty rhetoricmust be coupled
with the bolstering of NATO allies in close proximity to Russia. This should include the deployment of additional U.S.
military assets to the region, especially the four members that border Ukraine: Poland, Romania, Hungary and
Slovakia, and the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The message should be sent directly to Moscow
that any threat to a NATO member will be met with the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and the full
force of the NATO alliance. In addition, the Obama Administration must act to lift restrictions on the export of
liquefied natural gas to U.S. allies in Europe that have become increasingly energy dependent on Moscow.

Drilling lets us kill the Russians- two warrants

1. Drilling makes Russia mad! That means WAR!
Reuters 12/10 (Reuters, 12/10/13, New cold war: Russia eyes chilly Arctic in global energy play,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101262037#.)//RTF

Putin ordered Russia's military to increase its focus on the Arctic and
finish plans by the end of the year to upgrade military bases in the resource-rich
region where world powers jostle for control . Speaking to Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Putin
praised the military's work in the Arctic, where Canada said on Monday it was claiming the North Pole
President Vladimir

as part of an broader claim on the region. The United States, Denmark and Norway are also pressing for control of

"I request that you

pay special attention to the deployment of infrastructure and military units in the
Arctic," Putin said, speaking at a Defence Ministry board meeting. "By the end of the year it
is planned - and I expect it will be done ... the renewal of the Tiksi airfield and
completion of construction work on the Severomorsk-1 airfield ," he said in televised
comments. Russia has already completed work on renovating an airfield on the
Novosibirsk Islands, Putin said, which was abandoned in 1993. Earlier this year Moscow sent 10 warships and
four icebreakers to the islands in a show of force. Underscoring Moscow's sensitivity over Arctic
claims, Russia arrested 30 people on board a Greenpeace ship during a September
protest against Russian offshore Arctic drilling . They now face charges carrying
seven year jail sentences. Putin said earlier this week that Russia's military
presence in the Arctic was needed to protect against potential threats from the
United States. The U.S. Geological Survey says the Arctic contains 30 percent of the world's undiscovered
natural gas and 15 percent of oil. The world's largest oil producer, Russia expects to see oil output
decline at its mainstay western Siberian oilfields in coming years and has looked
further afield to potential Arctic reserves. Russia, Canada and Denmark all say an underwater
what they consider their fair share of massive untapped oil and natural gas reserves.

mountain range known as the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches 1,800 km (1,120 miles) across the pole under the
Arctic Sea, is part of their own landmass

Its all good because we would totally win

Wolfeyes 08 (Wolfeyes, yahoo answers said they answered 6 years ago, commenter on yahoo answers,
Can America win a war against Russia?, https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20080817101640AAYkVXY)//RTF

Can America win a war against Russia?

while Americans fight amongst each other. Russia plans an

America is the greatest

country in the world.

That is why we ...show more Best Answer wolfeyes_89 answered 6 years ago Of course we can,
but war is always uncertain. In terms of pure assets yes of course we can win 100 times over . If you
think about it all of our weapons were made to fight a WW III with the soviet union,
not Russia, which in blatant terms was a superpower while Russia is only an
emerging superpower that cant afford to pay it's officers. From our M1A1 Abrams
(which is the most powerful and technologically advanced tank in the world to date) to
our fleets and our F-22's, we are very prepared to fight a war with Russia. The fact that
we have forces active in Iraq and other parts of the world really doesn't matter because we still have
enough forces to fight another two or three conventional wars and keep our
mainland safe. To put it in laments terms. One carrier strike group has enough power to
eliminate the entire Russian air force and navy, and we only have about 2 or 3 in
Iraq out of 10 (but don't quote me on that) and seeing as how Russia will chose to fight a conventional war we
attack on the us. Update : By the way

wont have to be dispersing high value assets to eliminate gorilla targets on a massive scale like we have to right

Furthermore we don't only have the navy, we have an air force that
outnumbers the Russians in terms of technology and manpower. So really all we
have to worry about is nukes. I really don't think that a superpower like the U.S.
doesn't have a contingency for nukes I mean we build new nukes every ten years :D.
now in Iraq.

So in conclusion

we would win

but we would suffer about 25-35% casualties of the total

number of forces that we would deploy, because at the end of the day Russia's armed forces are a big threat.

2. Drilling LITERALLY KILLS THE RUSSIA

US gas exports are great!
Kasperowicz 3/5 (Pete, 3/5/14, staff writer for The Hill, Boehner: Weaken Russian influence by
exporting US natural gas, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/199978-boehner-weaken-russian-influence-byexporting-us-natural-gas)//RTF
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday called on the Obama administration to allow more exports of
natural gas, which he said is a move that would help weaken the influence of Russia. Boehner said Russia's
involvement in Ukraine is "more than a cause for concern, it's a cause for action." He said Congress would work with
the White House to counter Russia's move into Ukraine, but said energy policy should also be a part of the U.S.

selling more natural gas abroad would help boost U.S. values overseas,
"We can supplant
Russia's influence, but we won't so long as we have to contend with the Energy Department's achingly slow
reaction. He said

but said so far, President Obama's Energy Department is holding these exports back.

approval process," Boehner said on the House floor. Boehner said the Department has received 24 export permits,
but has approved only six. "This amounts to a de facto ban only emboldens Vladimir Putin, allowing him to sell large
quantities of natural gas to our allies," Boehner said. "President should do the right thing here, and end this de facto
ban so we can strengthen our economy here and our security here and abroad." Earlier in the day, Boehner
indicated that language on natural gas could be part of a Ukraine bill that could come up this week or next. Soon
after Boehner spoke, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) announced on the floor that he is proposing legislation that would
require the Department of Energy to expedite all natural gas export permits to Ukraine, all former Soviet nations,
and the European Union. "Ukraine is almost totally dependent on Russia for energy," Poe said. "Russian imperialism
has proved that it's willing to use gas as a political, economic weapon to intimidate its neighbors. " The

demand
is there and the American supply is overwhelming. The only thing standing in the
way are the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy." Poe also said he would propose a bill to
withhold all visas for Russian government officials until the Secretary of State confirms that all Russian military
activity in Ukraine has ceased. Boehner and Poe add to the growing chorus of Republican lawmakers pushing for
Obama to expedite U.S. liquefied natural gas exports. Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Paul

"If President Obama

is serious about helping the people of Ukraine, he will immediately expedite the
approval process for liquefied natural gas exports ," Barrasso said.
Ryan (Wis.) all blasted Obama this week for failing to "maintain leadership in the world."

RIP in pepperonis Russia

Aron 6/29 (Leon, 6/29/14, Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, The political economy of Russian oil and gas, http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defensepolicy/regional/europe/the-political-economy-of-russian-oil-and-gas/)//RTF

among the most destabilizing consequences of the continuing dependence on

oil and gas will be the Kremlins declining ability to secure the elites loyalty . Fiercely
protective of their share of the politically apportioned riches of Russias state capitalism, powerful clans will
squabble to secure the same share of a diminishing pie, in the process threatening
the stability of the regime. Putins unchallenged power rests on a tripartite foundation:
oil and gas money, the Federal Security Service, and television , a Russian observer
noted last December.[75] Today, one leg of this tripod is beginning to look wobbly. These may
Finally,

not be the challenges of tomorrow or the day after. Yet in the medium term and longer term, trends in technology

and the global economy, as well as the countrys own economic, social, political, and demographic dynamics, seem
to have conspired to leave the Kremlin no good, risk-free choices.

You have a moral obligation to vote af

Cromstar, Day 982 (Cromstar, day 982, Patriot, So You Want to Kill Russians?,
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/so-you-want-to-kill-russians--1471663/1/20)//RTF

Kill Russians

So You Want to
? Day 982, 13:13by Cromstar Good for you! Its not
just a fun thing to do, its your patriotic duty as a citizen of the eUSA! And dont feel
bad for the Russians, eitherthey hate apple pie, and have insulting things to say
about your mother. I cantbelieve how low those fellows will go! So now that you know what
you want to do, you need to get down to business ! Unfortunately, while it may be fun to ride around in
yourtank or helicopter and blow Russians up on the battlefield, that doesnt alwayshelp the eUSA win the war. You
cant just fight, you have to fight smart. After youve picked your weapon and stepped onto the battlefield to gun
down a few members of the Red Menace, you have to ask yourself, How can I help the eUS win this
battle? First off, you should seriously consider joining up with the eUS military (or a militia if you swing that way).
In addition to thefun of being a member of some of the most kick-ass organizations in eRepublik,they provide better
instructions on how, when, and where to fight, plus theyhelp provide you with cheap/free weapons, moving tickets,
and other suppliesyou need to be effective. If you already are in a militia or the military, youshould contact your
superior in the chain-of-command for instructions. If you arent in any of those organizations, or you are, but youve
been told to cut loose, dont just go blasting Ruskies all willy-nilly!That does NOT help win battles most of the time.
Despite his best efforts, Rambo didnt save Oregon from Russia because he doesnt know enough about battlefield
tactics. So, learn from Rambos mistakes, and learnsome strategy! Remember reading all that stuff admins talked
about in their articles? Well, whether or not you do, heres a reminder: there are twoconditions to winning a battle.
One side must complete both conditions towin the battle. 1. Hold the Capital city of the region. 2. Possess at least
75% of the tiles in a region. If neither side has completed both objectives at the end of the 24 hour period for a
battle, it enters into overtimeand that means thefirst side to complete both conditions at the same time wins
automatically. So what does this mean for you? Well, due to the way the new war module works, it means that the
beginnings of most battles hold very little meaning on the outcome of thefight. In fact, well go so far as to say that,
unless the Department of DefenseOrders say otherwise, dont fight in the first day of any particular battle. Sadly,
after you go to bed that night, the OTHER side will wake up in the morning and undo all your progress when you
arent around tostop them. What does that mean? It means you probably wasted health, time,weapons, and money
and got nothing to show for it. However, during the second day of a battle, people begin to act, in the hopes of
completing the conditions and winning the battle for theirside! Nows your chance to act, and you should know what
to do! Russians, Russians, everywhere, and not a friend in sight? That will probably happen sometimes. In those
cases, you might end up getting attacked by a dozen enemies and end up dead. Remember, youarent superman!
Even a Field Marshall and a Veteran with a Q5 weapon willeventually be brought down by enough Russians. You
want to take them downwithout being taken down yourself. Basic tactics Remember the terrain bonuses and use
them to your advantage for both offense and defense. Infantry, stick to forests and mountains,especially when
facing tanks (they will just run you over if you catch them inthe hills where they have the terrain bonus!) Dont
forget your unit bonuseseither infantry! Whenever you spot an enemy artillery defending a city, bridge,or just out in
the open, you can move in on him. Hell have the defense bonusin a city tile, but anywhere else, you can just
destroy that artillery and freethe ground for friendly helios to join the fight at your side. Tanks, just remember to run
over any infantry you can find. You cant chase them into the mountains, but if you get into the hills and getthe
terrain bonus for yourself, your unit bonus will give you that much of anedge to destroy them. Youve got 2
movement points each turn, an advantage overinfantry and artillery, so use them well to cover ground fast if you
need toget somewhere in a hurry. Just be sure to watch out for helicoptersespeciallyon open ground.

Helicopters, you have most useful functions in a battle. In addition to 3 movement points, you can cross
ANY terrain, a huge bonus overevery other unit. In fact, water tiles can only be captured by helicopters, andyou
are the only unit that isnt affected by bridge blockades. Use yourmovement to benefit your allies, by helping to get
around behind blockades atstrategic locations, crossing rivers where there arent any enemy units,sneaking into the
backfield to capture tiles unopposed, or just bearing down ona tank and blowing it to pieces. Artillery, you have an
extremely important role to play. Helicopters are extremely versatile units that can cause a lot of problems ifleft
unchecked. Luckily, you have the advantage over themoh, and you have anadvantage when in a city. Gee
regional capitals are cities. That makesartillery perfect for defending capitalsespecially against rouge helios
thatjust fly over a river to avoid the defenses at bridgeheads! No, Im afraid that isnt all there is. Remember, just
remembering the basics about unit strengths and bonuses only gets you so faryou need to know a bit more about
tactics onthe battlefield in order to best help the eUSA. Heres the nitty-gritty detail. Things the experts know but

you might not. Learn them by heart. Deployment Where you deploy on the map is important in a battle. If you
didnt deploy in the first day of the battle and waited until the second,youll have the extra luxury of deploying most
anywhere on the map your alliesstill control. Thats another reason to wait on joining a battleafter youvejoined
the battle once, you are limited in where you are allowed to deploy to thebattlefield. Oh, and while you should
carefully consider where to deploy, you should also remember that deployment is important to the other side as
well.Remember that. So where to deploy? Generally speaking, deploying for the first time leaves you with 4 main
options you might run into you. If either side owns the entire map, you pretty much have a choice of where to
deployalong the front line of the deployment zone. If yourside owns the map, you should deploy along the
enemys deployment zone and helpkeep them from breaking out. If the enemy owns the map, deploy in your
owndeployment zone and help your allies to break out. If the battle is particular close or tight, theres likely to be
large zones controlled by one side or the other. If there is fightingaround the capital of a region, and you can deploy
nearby, that might be a goodidea, so that you can join in on the attack or defense of the capital,depending on who
owns it. Sometimes, when you go to deploy, youll notice that theres a major front where both sides are stacked up
heavily. If theres only that onefront, you can choose where to deploy and do your best to break the enemyslines
and secure the battle for your side. Finally, sometimes you might get lucky and your allies will have taken a large
zone behind the enemy lines. Deploying in these zones toattack the enemy and capture tiles behind his lines, where
hes weak andusually has few units, can really help your allies. It not only pushes towardsthe tile-holding victory
condition, but it also draws fighters away from thefront lines of battle, forcing the enemy to lose ground if hes not
careful andtoo many people leave the front. Tiles versus Fights

Everyone wants to kill

the enemy. We all know that. However, killing the enemy doesnt actually win the battle. Its
controlling tiles. Sometimes youll want to jump into the fight and blow some stuff up. However, you might be more
useful performing the dull job ofcapturing tiles. It might not sound as glamorous as fighting the enemy up-closeand
personal, but it often has a bigger impact on the battle itself. Remember how important deployment zones are?
Remember when we mentioned deploying in the backfield to cause trouble for the enemy? Well,the enemy can do
the same to you! So if you happen to be nearby a cluster of enemy tiles, and they are behind the main front of a
battle, quickly capture them so the enemycant deploy there! The last thing you and your friends want is for a
dozenField Marshalls to appear right beside the capital because you were too busychasing the enemy away to
capture the tiles. If theres any form of breach inthe front where a helicopter popped across a river, or a clump of
tiles wheresome tough guys made their last stand, then please help capture those tilesbefore getting back into the
fight. Capturing tiles and cutting off enemy deployments can turn the tide of battle! And remember, you need 75%
of the tiles to win the battleifyour side only needs those last few tiles, these ones are easier to pick upthan the
ones the enemy is currently sitting on. Bridges and rivers Three of the four unit types are blocked by rivers and
require a bridge to cross. So naturally, rivers form strong barriers against all but helios,and bridges become very
important in the long run. When it comes to attackingor defending rivers, everyone needs to pull together to do it

Tanks and
infantry serve as the backbone of anysuccessful attack or defense of a bridge
crossing a river. You need to pileonto the bridge and surrounding tiles, push back enemy attacks on
right! Tanks and infantry, being limited to land, have only one real option: take the bridges!

yourpositions, and try and dislodge the enemy from their own positions. Onceyouve secured the bridge, everyone
should be moving across it and into thetiles on the other side of the bridge. Dont get caught up in just holdingthe
bridge tile, when you can use the terrain on the far side to increase yourdefensive advantage! Helicopters also play
an important role in river-crossing, since they arent limited to the bridge. While some helicopters should assistat
the bridge itself, still others should find undefended parts of the riverto cross and enter the enemys territory,
dragging vital resources awayfrom the bridge AND capturing tiles for your side. Remember, helicopters have along
range (3 moves per turn) and you can easily out run the enemy and forcehim to chase you around. Artillery have as
big a role in defending rivers as helicopters do in assaulting them. In fact, its because helicopters have suchan
important role in crossing rivers. Artillery should spread themselves outalong the entire length of a river bank and
prevent enemy helios fromcrossing the river. If you dont, they enemy can circumvent any defense at thebridge and
weaken your allies. Defending the capital We cannot stress this enough, so were going to make it big and bold so
you dont miss it. DO NOT JUST PILE INTO THE CAPITAL CITY TILE AND HOPE TO KEEP THE ENEMY FROM TAKING IT.
Did you catch that? Goodmeans we dont have to say it again. But we are anyway. DO NOT sit on the capital tile
and assume you are doing a good job. You are NOT. In fact, with a few exceptions, the only units that should be
camped out on the capital tile itself are artillery, since they have a defensebonus in cities. Everyone else should
make positive use of the terrainaround the capital to increase the defenses of the capital. Check theterrain and look
at where the enemy units are coming from. Are helicopters crossing a nearby river to attack? Some artillery should
take up positions along the river or just wait at the capitalto shoot them down. Theres not much point in tanks
sitting between them, onlyto get shredded by helios. Nearby bridge head providing the only land access to the
capital? Then all the tanks and infantry should be on the land between the capital andthe bridge, and pushing to
take that bridge and cripple the enemy assault. Does the capital sit in the middle of ground, with no near by rivers?
The enemy can come in from everywhere? Then use the terrain toyour advantage! If there are nearby mountains
and forests, the infantryshould be piled up knee deep in there, using the terrain bonus to attack enemyunits from
the cover. Helicopters should zoom around the open plains, attackingthe enemy and avoiding slow-moving artillery.

Tanks should find any hills ifthey canand if they cant, they should concentrate on preventing enemyinfantry from
entering the forests or mountains. Catch the infantry in the openbefore they can make it to the forest and destroy

So you want to kill Russians? Good to hear. And

rememberkilling Russians just isnt enough. We want to win the war as well !
them that much easier. Closing thoughts

Hopefully youll remember the lessonsweve taught you today, and put them to use on the field tomorrow! And
dont forget, ladies, gentlemen, and whatever the rest of you are, if you arent sure what to do, the eUS Department
of Defense has apublic IRC channel where you can come and ask for advice on where and how tofight! Join us in the
Rizon channel #defense where all your questions will beanswered.

victory!

Now, on to

Contention #3 are the Stock Issues

Thus the plan: The United States federal government
should/shall/ought to substantially increase its substantial
investment, leasing, developmental development,
explorational development and/or developmental exploration,
in/of the Earths oceans.

Contention #4 is Childrens Literature

Voting neg is for Dave Strauss- vote af
Phiddian 97

(Robert, 1997, lecturer in English at Flinders University of South Australia, Are Parody and
Deconstruction Secretly the Same Thing?, https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/jspui/bitstream/2328/1032/1/Are
%20Parody%20and%20Deconstruction%20Secretly%20the%20Same%20Thing.pdf)//RTF

parody is a form of deconstruction. I want to assert

this with all the force that metaphor can muster, with all the tropical force a ttributed to
metaphor in "White Mythology." I'm not just arguing that parody is like
deconstruction; I'm arguing that they are secretly the same thing. Consider this passage
from Of Grammatology: "The movements of deconstruction do not destroy [sollicitent]
structures from the ou tside. They are not possible and effective, nor can they take
accurate aim, except by inhabiting those structures. Inhabiting them in a certain way, because
I'd like to go a step further, and assert that

one always inhabits, and all the more when one does not suspect it. Operating necessarily from the inside ,
borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of subversion from the old structure, borrowing them
structurally, that is to say without being able to isolate their elements and atoms ,

the enterprise of
deconstruction always in a certain way falls prey to its own work ." 20 It is clear that
deconstruction, especially as Derrida practices it, nests in the structure of the texts and ideas
it criticizes, as a cuckoo infiltrates and takes over the nests of other birds . It
operates from inside the arguments of metaphysical texts and systems such as
structuralism and phenomenology, showing how they cannot totalize the visions they proclaim, and precisely where

It is not primary thought, always secondary, always "borrowing

all the strategic and economic resources of subversion from the old structure ." And
they double and collapse.

this is precisely what parody does too. It is preeminently a genre-bricoleur, living off the energies and inadequacies
of previous writings, "borrowing them structurally" and transforming them with a critical eye .

Don Quixote is
in a deconstructive economy with romance, just as surely as Grammatology is in a
deconstructive economy with Rousseau's theory of language ; and in many similar ways.
Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose inhabits the rhetorical structure of the detective story, " operating
necessarily from the inside, borrowing all the strategic and economic resources of
subversion from the old structure." It does not destroy it "from the outside," and is,
indeed, much more complicit with what it deconstructs than the blank idea of
criticism suggests. It does not entirely repudiate the detective story, and actually "falls prey to its own work"
by becoming a sort of costume detective story in turn; yet the detective story is also ironized and placed under
erasure. It looks different after The Name of the Rose, and that difference looks very like a play of diffrance.

Seriously, Russians are assholes

Zizek 2k8

(Slavoj, 2008, Professor of Sociology at University of Ljublajana, In Defense of Lost Causes,

http://moodle.tau.ac.il/2012/pluginfile.php/365364/mod_resource/content/1/Zizek%20-%20In%20Defense%20of
%20Lost%20Causes.pdf, 342-343)//RTF
Critchley's claim that "[s]ome versions of psychoanalysis, particularly Lacans, have a problem with the superego" is

Lacan was fully aware not only of the link between humor and the superego,
but also of the brutal-sadistic aspect of humor. The Mar x Brothers' Duck Soup, their
masterpiece, is regarded as a work that makes fun of ridiculous totalitarian state
rituals, denouncing their empty posturing, and so on: laughter is the mightiest
weapon, no wonder that totalitarian regimes found it so threatening . . . This commonplace should be turned
upside down: the powerful effect oDuvk Soup does not reside in its mockery of the
totalitarian state's machinery and paraphernalia, but in openly displaying the
madness, the "fun," the cruel irony , which are already present in the totalitarian
state. The Mar x brothers' "carnival" is the carnival of totalitarianism itself. Wha t is the superego? Recall the
thus odd:

strange fact, regularly evoked by Primo Levi and other ffolocaust survivors, regarding how their
intimate reaction to their survival wa s marked by a deep split : consciously, they were fully
aware that their survival wa s just a meaningless accident, that they were not in any wa y responsible for it, that the
only guilty perpetrators were their Nazi torturers; at the same time ,

they wer e (more than mildly)

haunted by the "irrational" feeling of guilt, as if they had survived at the expense of
others who had died and were thus somehow responsible for their deaths as is wellknown, this unbearable feeling of guilt drove many of the survivors to suicide. This feeling of guilt displays
the agency of the superego at its purest: the obscene agency which manipulates us
into a spiraling movement of self-destruction. Wha t this means is that the function
of the superego is precisely to obfuscate the cause of the terror constitutive of our
being human, the inhuman core of being human, the dimension of what the German Idealists
called nega tivity and what Freud called the death drive. Far from being the traumatic hard
core of the Real from which sublimations protect us, the superego is itself the mask
screening the Real. The humorous superego is the cruel and insatiable agency which bom bards me with
impossible demands and which mocks m y failed attempts to meet them, the agency in the eyes of which I am all
the more guilty, the more 1 try to suppress m y "sinful" strivings and meet its demands. As I have noted, the cynical
Stalinist motto about the accused at the show trials wh o professed their innocence ("the more they are innocent,
the more they deserve to be shot") is the superego at its purest. Consequently, for Lacan, the superego "has
nothing to do with moral conscience as far as its most obligatory demands are concerned:"''* the superego is, on
the contrary, the anti-ethical agency, the stigmatization of our ethical betrayal. As such, the superego is, at its most
elementary, not a prohibitive, but a productive agency: "Nothing forces anyone to enjoy except the superego. The
superego is the imperative oijouL)Mnce ^n)oy\" ' Although jouldMnce can be translated as "enjoy ment,"
translators of Lacan often leave it in French in order to render palpable its excessive, properly traumatic character:

we are not dealing with simple pleasures, but with a violent intrusion that brings
more pain than pleasure. No wonder, then, that Lacan posited an equation between jouMdance and the
superego: to enjoy is not a matter of following one's spontaneous tendencies; it is rather something we do as a kind
of weird and twisted ethical duty. When, following Badiou, Critchley defines the subject as something that emerges
through fidelity to the Good ("A subject is the name for the w a y in which a self binds itself to some conception of
the good and shapes its subjectivity in relation to that good"),'^ from a strict Lacanian perspective, he is confusing
subject and subjectivization. Lacan is here to be opposed to the discourse-theory doxa about the subject as an
effect of the process of subjectivization: for Lacan, the subject preceded sub jectivization, subjectivization (the
constitution of the subject's "inner life" of experience) is a defense against the subject. As such, the subject is a
(pre)condition of the process of subjectivization, in the same sense in which, back in the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse
claimed that freedom is the condition of liberation. Insofar as, in away , the subject, in its content, "is " nothing
positively but the result of the process of subjectivization, one can also say that the subject precedes ihielf'm
order to become subject, it already has to be subject, so that, in its process of becoming, it becomes what it already
is. (And, incidentally, this feature distinguishes the properly Hegelian dialectical process from pseudo-Hegelian

The obvious counter-argument to this is that we are dealing here

with the archetypal case of ideological illusion: there is no subject prior to the
process of subjectivization, its prexistence is precisely the inversion that bears
witness to the success of the ideological constitution of the subject; once
constituted, the subject necessarily experiences itself as the cause of the very
process that constitutes it, that is, it perceives this process as its "expression." This,
precisely, is the reasoning one should reject but why exactly?
"dialectical evolution.")

Conditionality is a voting issue- skews 2AC strat and time and

lets the neg go for the path of least resistance
Cheeseman and Bruce 96 (Graeme, Senior Lecturer at New South Wales, and
Robert, editor, widespread author on security, Discourses of Danger & Dread
Frontiers, p. 5-9)
This goal is pursued in ways which are still unconventional in the intellectual milieu
of international relations in Australia, even though they are gaining influence worldwide as traditional
modes of theory and practice are rendered inadequate by global trends that defy comprehension, let alone policy.

The inability to give meaning to global changes reflects partly the enclosed, elitist
world of professional security analysts and bureaucratic experts, where entry is
gained by learning and accepting to speak a particular, exclusionary language. The
contributors to this book are familiar with the discourse, but accord no privileged
place to its knowledge form as reality in debates on defence and security. Indeed,
they believe that debate will be furthered only through a long overdue critical reevaluation of elite perspectives. Pluralistic, democratically-oriented perspectives on
Australias identity are both required and essential if Australias thinking on defence and
security is to be invigorated. This is not a conventional policy book; nor should it be, in
the sense of offering policy-makers and their academic counterparts sets of neat
alternative solutions, in familiar language and format, to problems they pose. This expectation is in
itself a considerable part of the problem to be analysed. It is, however, a book about policy, one
that questions how problems are framed by policy-makers. It challenges the
proposition that irreducible bodies of real knowledge on defence and security exist
independently of their context in the world, and it demonstrates how security
policy is articulated authoritatively by the elite keepers of that knowledge, experts
trained to recognize enduring, universal wisdom. All others, from this perspective,
must accept such wisdom or remain outside the expert domain , tainted by their
inability to comply with the rightness of the official line. But it is precisely the
official line, or at least its image of the world, that needs to be problematised. If the
critic responds directly to the demand for policy alternatives, without addressing
this image, he or she is tacitly endorsing it. Before engaging in the policy debate the
critics need to reframe the basic terms of reference . This book, then, reflects and underlines the
importance of Antonio Gramsci and Edward Saids critical intellectuals.15 The demand, tacit or otherwise,
that the policy-makers frame of reference be accepted as the only basis for
discussion and analysis ignores a three thousand year old tradition commonly associated
with Socrates and purportedly integral to the Western tradition of democratic dialogue. More immediately, it ignores

a good society must have within it

some way of critically assessing its knowledge and the decisions based upon that
knowledge which impact upon citizens of such a society . This is a tradition with a slightly
post-seventeenth century democratic traditions which insist that

different connotation in contemporary liberal democracies which, during the Cold War, were proclaimed different
and superior to the totalitarian enemy precisely because there were institutional checks and balances upon power.
In short, one of the major differences between open societies and their (closed) counterparts behind the Iron
Curtain was that the former encouraged the critical testing of the knowledge and decisions of the powerful and
assessing them against liberal democratic principles. The latter tolerated criticism only on rare and limited
occasions. For some, this represented the triumph of rational-scientific methods of inquiry and techniques of
falsification. For others, especially since positivism and rationalism have lost much of their allure, it meant that for
society to become open and liberal, sectors of the population must be independent of the state and free to question
its knowledge and power. Though we do not expect this position to be accepted by every reader, contributors to this
book believe that critical dialogue is long overdue in Australia and needs to be listened
all its liberal democratic trappings, Australias security community continues to invoke closed monological

to. For

This book also questions the distinctions between policy

practice and academic theory that inform conventional accounts of Australian security.
One of its major concerns, particularly in chapters 1 and 2, is to illustrate how theory is
integral to the practice of security analysis and policy prescription. The book also calls on
narratives on defence and security.

policy-makers, academics and students of defence and security to think critically about what they are reading,
writing and saying; to begin to ask, of their work and study, difficult and searching questions raised in other

what is involved in theory and

practice is not the ability to identify a replacement for failed models, but a
realisation that terms and concepts state sovereignty, balance of power, security, and so on are
contested and problematic, and that the world is indeterminate, always becoming what is
disciplines; to recognise, no matter how uncomfortable it feels, that

Critical analysis which shows how particular kinds of theoretical

presumptions can effectively exclude vital areas of political life from analysis has
direct practical implications for policy-makers, academics and citizens who face the
daunting task of steering Australia through some potentially choppy international
waters over the next few years. There is also much of interest in the chapters for those struggling to
written about it.

give meaning to a world where so much that has long been taken for granted now demands imaginative, incisive

contributors, too, have struggled to find meaning, often despairing at the terrible
readers will find no single, fully formed panacea
for the worlds ills in general, or Australias security in particular. There are none. Every chapter,
reappraisal. The

human costs of international violence. This is why

however, in its own way, offers something more than is found in orthodox literature, often by exposing ritualistic
Cold War defence and security mind-sets that are dressed up as new thinking. Chapters 7 and 9, for example,

present alternative ways of engaging in security and defence practice . Others (chapters
3, 4, 5, 6 and 8) seek to alert policy-makers, academics and students to alternative theoretical possibilities
which might better serve an Australian community pursuing security and prosperity in an
uncertain world. All chapters confront the policy community and its counterparts in the
academy with a deep awareness of the intellectual and material constraints imposed by dominant traditions of
realism, but they avoid dismissive and exclusionary terms which often in the past
characterized exchanges between policy-makers and their critics . This is because,
as noted earlier, attention needs to be paid to the words and the thought processes
of those being criticized. A close reading of this kind draws attention to underlying
assumptions, showing they need to be recognized and questioned . A sense of doubt
(in place of confident certainty) is a necessary prelude to a genuine search for
alternative policies. First comes an awareness of the need for new perspectives,
then specific policies may follow. As Jim George argues in the following chapter, we need to look
not so much at contending policies as they are made for us but at challenging the
discursive process which gives [favoured interpretations of reality] their meaning
and which direct [Australias] policy/analytical/military responses. This process is not restricted
to the small, official defence and security establishment huddled around the US-Australian War Memorial in
Canberra. It also encompasses much of Australias academic defence and security community located primarily
though not exclusively within the Australian National University and the University College of the University of New

These discursive processes are examined in detail in subsequent chapters

as authors attempt to make sense of a politics of exclusion and closure which
exercises disciplinary power over Australias security community. They also question
the discourse of regional security, security cooperation, peacekeeping and
alliance politics that are central to Australias official and academic security
agenda in the 1990s. This is seen as an important task especially when, as is
revealed, the disciplines of International Relations and Strategic Studies are under
challenge from critical and theoretical debates ranging across the social sciences
and humanities; debates that are nowhere to be found in Australian defence and
security studies. The chapters graphically illustrate how Australias public policies on defence and security are
South Wales.

informed, underpinned and legitimised by a narrowly-based intellectual enterprise which draws strength from
contested concepts of realism and liberalism, which in turn seek legitimacy through policy-making processes.

Contributors ask whether Australias policy-makers and their academic advisors are
unaware of broader intellectual debates, or resistant to them, or choose not to
understand them, and why?

Everyone dances to her or his own personal boomboom- dance

to your boomboom!
Disyaka 13

(Ali, 2/1/13, writer for E International Relations Students, Towards a Critical Securitization Theory:
The Copenhagen and Aberystwyth Schools of Security Studies, http://www.e-ir.info/2013/02/01/towards-a-criticalsecuritization-theory-the-copenhagen-and-aberystwyth-schools-of-security-studies/)//RTF

security is about survival. Copenhagen School theorists argue

international relations something becomes a security issue when it is
presented as posing an existential threat to some object a threat that needs to be dealt with
According to the Copenhagen School,[6]
that in

immediately and with extraordinary measures.[7] Apart from sharing this traditional military understanding of
security with traditional security scholars,

the conceptual apparatus of the Copenhagen School theorists

a mix of neorealist and social constructivist concepts differs immensely from their traditional
colleagues. Three conceptual tools of analysis can be distinguished here: sectors of
security, regional security complex theory[8] and securitization theory[9]. Nevertheless,
although sectors are used in this paper, it will concentrate on the innovative and influential securitization theory as

main argument of securitization

theory is that in international relations an issue becomes a security issue not
because something constitutes an objective threat to the state (or another referent object),
but rather because an actor has defined something as existential threat to some
objects survival. By doing so, the actor has claimed the right to handle the issue through extraordinary
well as on the under-theorised desecuritization theory.[10] The

means to ensure the referent objects survival. Security is thus a self-referential practice: an issue becomes a

the fact that security is a social and

intersubjective construct does not mean that everything can become easily
securitized. In order to successfully securitize an issue, a securitizing actor has to
perform a securitizing move (present something as an existential threat to a referent object) which
has to be accepted by a targeted audience . Only by gaining acceptance from the
audience, the issue can be moved above the sphere of normal politics, allowing
elites to break normal procedures and rules and implement emergency measures.
security issue only by being labelled as one. However,

[11] However, it is important to note that for the Copenhagen School, security should be seen as a negative, as a

the Copenhagen School prefers

desecuritization, whereby issues are moved out of the sphere of exceptionality and
into the ordinary public sphere. II. The Aberystwyth School: Critical Theory and Security/Emancipation
The Aberystwyth School of security studies or Critical Security Studies (hereafter CSS)[13] works within the
failure to deal with issues of normal politics.[12] Therefore,

tradition of Critical Theory which has its roots in Marxism. CSS is based on the pioneering work of Ken Booth[14]
and Richard Wyn Jones[15], which is heavily influenced by Gramscian critical theory and Frankfurt School critical
social theory as well as by radical International Relations theory most recently associated with the neogramscian
theorist Robert W. Cox.[16] As diverse as these approaches might seem, they all originate in the Marxian
productivist paradigm, seeking to develop a social theory orientated toward social transformation by exploring and
elucidating human emancipations barriers and possibilities.[17] Like other critical approaches, CSS sets out from
a criticism of traditional security studies and its state-centric nature. However, Booth and Wyn Jones not only
criticise traditional approaches, but also offer a very clear view of how to reconceptualise security studies by

making human emancipation their focus . Only a process of emancipation can make
the prospect of true human security more likely . For Booth and Wyn Jones, the realist
understanding of security as power and order can never lead to true security. For them, the sovereign
state is not the main provider of security, but one of the main causes of insecurity.
Indeed, during the last hundred years far more people have been killed by their own governments than by foreign
armies.[18] True security, Booth argues, can only be achieved by people and groups if they do not deprive others

emancipation
offers a theory of progress for politics, it provides a politics of hope and gives
guidance to a politics of resistance () Emancipation is the only permanent hope of becoming.[20]
of it.[19] In order to achieve true security, it must be understood as emancipation. For Booth,

For Booth security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin.[21] Furthermore, Booth rejects the claim that
security is a contested concept. In order to achieve security, Booth contends, we have to define it; and [t]he best

starting point for conceptualising security lies in the real conditions of insecurity suffered by people and
collectives.[22] What is immediately striking, Booth argues, is that biological drives for security are universal (to
have food, shelter, safety etc.) as well as the fact that the lack of security is a life determining condition. Booth calls
this condition survival, which he defines as the struggle of a person or a group of people in order to exist. Survival
is not synonymous with living tolerably well, and less still with having the conditions to pursue cherished political
and social ambitions; for the latter, Booth argues, security is required, and not just survival. In this sense security
is equivalent to survival-plus (the plus being some freedom from life determining threats, and therefore space to
make choices).[23] In short, survival is being alive; security is living.

We control uniqueness- CIR isnt going to pass

Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, 2008 [Critique of Security, 185-6]
The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of
security altogether - to reject it as so ideologically loaded in favour of the state that any real
political thought other than the authoritarian and reactionary should be pressed to give it up.
That is clearly something that can not be achieved within the limits of bourgeois thought and
thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something that
the constant iteration of the refrain 'this is an insecure world' and reiteration of one fear, anxiety
and insecurity after another will also make it hard to do. But it is something that the critique of
security suggests we may have to consider if we want a political way out of the impasse of
security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-encompassing that it
marginalises all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that
animate political life. The constant prioritising of a mythical security as a political end - as the
political end constitutes a rejection of politics in any meaningful sense of the term. That is, as a
mode of action in which differences can be articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles that
arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which people might come to
believe that another world is possible - that they might transform the world and in turn be
transformed. Security politics simply removes this; worse, it remoeves it while purportedly
addressing it. In so doing it suppresses all issues of power and turns political questions into
debates about the most efficient way to achieve 'security', despite the fact that we are never quite
told - never could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this
sense, an anti-politics,"' dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security
state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic
character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security
politics, not add yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and
legitimises state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a
personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important text Critical Security
Studies, in which the latter asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left
behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to
think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of
security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or
whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently
end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. The real
task is not to fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an
alternative political language which takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security
and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of
critical politics: to develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we
want. Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the
tradition of critical theory is that the negative may be as significant as the positive in setting
thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the
fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep
demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our
liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian
tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security politics would allow us
to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising of social and
political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the
existing forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most
democratic forms. It would also allow us to forge another kind of politics centred on a different

conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and
politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of
the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires
recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising
that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the
human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead learning
to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and 'insecurities' that come with being human; it
requires accepting that 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but
bracketing it out and handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'

Also, Congress doesnt get the blame for anythingtheyre too adorable

The Onion 13 (The Onion, Americas finest news source Poll Shows Majority Of
Americans Cant Blame Congress For The Shutdown, Not With Those Adorable Faces
They Cant
NEWS IN BRIEF Politics Government Politicians ISSUE 4941 Oct 7,
2013)//gingE
WASHINGTONAs the federal government shutdown enters its second week, a recent CBS News/New York Times

Americans just cant find it in their hearts

to blame congressmen for the ongoing impasse, especially not with those adorable
little faces of theirs. Im obviously upset that our elected officials cant work together to figure out a
reasonable budget resolution, but honestly, how could you ever stay mad at those cutie
pies? said 46-year-old Silver Spring, MD resident Daniel Hadler, one of the 78 percent
of Americans who want to pinch congressmen and women right on their big chubby
cheeks, while a further 91 percent said they would love to put the lawmakers
between two slices of bread and just eat them right up. Have you ever seen
anything so precious in your whole life? I mean, look at themdressed up in their little
suits with their big-boy ties on, huffing and puffing around the Capitol building. You
cant be angry when your hearts practically melting. At press time, 94 percent of Americans
poll revealed Monday that an overwhelming majority of

were about to lash out at the legislative branch, but after taking one look at Congressman Ken Calverts sweet
punim, decided that all they could do was pick the little guy up,

squeeze him tight, and give him a

big, sloppy kiss on the cheek.

I promise were topical! (not entirely highlighted)

Burke 07

(Anthony, 2007, Australian political theorist and international relations scholar and Associate
Professor (Reader) of Politics and International Relations in the University of New South Wales, Ontologies of War:
Violence, Existence and Reason, Project MUSE)//RTF

This essay develops a theory about the causes of war -- and thus aims to
generate lines of action and critique for peace -- that cuts beneath analyses based either on a given
Two Ontologies of War

sequence of events, threats, insecurities and political manipulation, or the play of institutional, economic or political
interests (the

'military-industrial complex'). Such factors are important to be sure, and should not
flow over a deeper bedrock of modern reason that has not only
come to form a powerful structure of common sense but the apparently solid ground
of the real itself. In this light, the two 'existential' and 'rationalist' discourses of warmaking and justification mobilised in the Lebanon war are more than merely
arguments, rhetorics or even discourses. Certainly they mobilise forms of knowledge and power
be discounted, but they

together; providing political leaderships, media, citizens, bureaucracies and military forces with organising systems

they run deeper than that. They are truth-systems

of the most powerful and fundamental kind that we have in modernity: ontologies,
statements about truth and being which claim a rarefied privilege to state what is
and how it must be maintained as it is. I am thinking of ontology in both its senses:
ontology as both a statement about the nature and ideality of being (in this case political
being, that of the nation-state), and as a statement of epistemological truth and certainty, of
of belief, action, analysis and rationale. But

methods and processes of arriving at certainty (in this case, the development and application of strategic
knowledge for the use of armed force, and the creation and maintenance of geopolitical order, security and national
survival). These derive from the classical idea of ontology as a speculative or positivistic inquiry into the
fundamental nature of truth, of being, or of some phenomenon; the desire for a solid metaphysical account of
things inaugurated by Aristotle, an account of 'being qua being and its essential attributes'.17 In contrast, drawing
on Foucauldian theorising about truth and power ,

I see ontology as a particularly powerful claim

to truth itself: a claim to the status of an underlying systemic foundation for truth,
identity, existence and action; one that is not essential or timeless, but is
thoroughly historical and contingent, that is deployed and mobilised in a fraught
and conflictual socio-political context of some kind. In short, ontology is the 'politics
of truth'18 in its most sweeping and powerful form. I see such a drive for ontological
certainty and completion as particularly problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly ,
when it takes the form of the existential and rationalist ontologies of war, it amounts to a hard and
exclusivist claim: a drive for ideational hegemony and closure that limits debate and
questioning, that confines it within the boundaries of a particular, closed system of
logic, one that is grounded in the truth of being, in the truth of truth as such. The
second is its intimate relation with violence: the dual ontologies represent a
simultaneously social and conceptual structure that generates violence. Here we are
witness to an epistemology of violence (strategy) joined to an ontology of violence (the national security state).

When we consider their relation to war, the two ontologies are especially dangerous
because each alone (and doubly in combination) tends both to quicken the resort to war and
to lead to its escalation either in scale and duration, or in unintended effects. In
such a context violence is not so much a tool that can be picked up and used on
occasion, at limited cost and with limited impact -- it permeates being. This essay
describes firstly the ontology of the national security state (by way of the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes,
Carl Schmitt and G. W. F. Hegel) and secondly the rationalist ontology of strategy (by way of the geopolitical thought
of Henry Kissinger), showing how they crystallise into a mutually reinforcing system of support and justification,
especially in the thought of Clausewitz. This creates both a profound ethical and pragmatic problem. The ethical
problem arises because of their militaristic force -- they embody and reinforce a norm of war -- and because they
enact what Martin Heidegger calls an 'enframing' image of technology and being in which humans are merely
utilitarian instruments for use, control and destruction, and force -- in the words of one famous Cold War strategist -can be thought of as a 'power to hurt'.19 The pragmatic problem arises because force so often produces neither the
linear system of effects imagined in strategic theory nor anything we could meaningfully call security, but rather
turns in upon itself in a nihilistic spiral of pain and destruction. In the era of a 'war on terror' dominantly conceived
in Schmittian and Clausewitzian terms,20 the arguments of Hannah Arendt (that violence collapses ends into
means) and Emmanuel Levinas (that 'every war employs arms that turn against those that wield them') take on
added significance. Neither, however, explored what occurs when war and being are made to coincide, other than
Levinas' intriguing comment that in war persons 'play roles in which they no longer recognises themselves, making
them betray not only commitments but their own substance'. 21 What I am trying to describe in this essay is a
complex relation between, and interweaving of, epistemology and ontology. But it is not my view that these are

because in the social field named by security,

statecraft and violence they are made to blur together, continually referring back on
each other, like charges darting between electrodes . Rather they are related systems
of knowledge with particular systemic roles and intensities of claim about truth,
political being and political necessity. Positivistic or scientific claims to epistemological truth supply an
distinct modes of knowledge or levels of truth,

air of predictability and reliability to policy and political action, which in turn support larger ontological claims to
national being and purpose, drawing them into a common horizon of certainty that is one of the central features of
past-Cartesian modernity. Here it may be useful to see ontology as a more totalising and metaphysical set of claims

about truth, and epistemology as more pragmatic and instrumental; but while a distinction between epistemology
(knowledge as technique) and ontology (knowledge as being) has analytical value, it tends to break down in action.

The epistemology of violence I describe here (strategic science and foreign policy doctrine)
claims positivistic clarity about techniques of military and geopolitical action which
use force and coercion to achieve a desired end, an end that is supplied by the
ontological claim to national existence, security, or order. However in practice,
technique quickly passes into ontology. This it does in two ways. First, instrumental
violence is married to an ontology of insecure national existence which itself admits
no questioning. The nation and its identity are known and essential, prior to any
conflict, and the resort to violence becomes an equally essential predicate of its
perpetuation. In this way knowledge-as-strategy claims, in a positivistic fashion, to achieve a calculability of
effects (power) for an ultimate purpose (securing being) that it must always assume. Second, strategy as a
technique not merely becomes an instrument of state power but ontologises itself in a technological image of 'man'
as a maker and user of things, including other humans, which have no essence or integrity outside their value as
objects. In Heidegger's terms, technology becomes being; epistemology immediately becomes technique,
immediately being. This combination could be seen in the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon war, whose obvious
strategic failure for Israelis generated fierce attacks on the army and political leadership and forced the resignation
of the IDF chief of staff. Yet in its wake neither ontology was rethought. Consider how a reserve soldier, while on
brigade-sized manoeuvres in the Golan Heights in early 2007, was quoted as saying: 'we are ready for the next
war'. Uri Avnery quoted Israeli commentators explaining the rationale for such a war as being to 'eradicate the
shame and restore to the army the "deterrent power" that was lost on the battlefields of that unfortunate war'. In
'Israeli public discourse', he remarked, 'the next war is seen as a natural phenomenon, like tomorrow's sunrise.' 22

The danger obviously raised here is that these dual ontologies of war link being,
means, events and decisions into a single, unbroken chain whose very process of
construction cannot be examined. As is clear in the work of Carl Schmitt, being implies action,
the action that is war. This chain is also obviously at work in the U.S.
neoconservative doctrine that argues, as Bush did in his 2002 West Point speech, that 'the only
path to safety is the path of action', which begs the question of whether strategic
practice and theory can be detached from strong ontologies of the insecure nationstate.23 This is the direction taken by much realist analysis critical of Israel and the Bush administration's 'war on
terror'.24 Reframing such concerns in Foucauldian terms, we could argue that obsessive ontological commitments
have led to especially disturbing 'problematizations' of truth.25 However such rationalist critiques rely on a onesided interpretation of Clausewitz that seeks to disentangle strategic from existential reason, and to open up choice
in that way. However without interrogating more deeply how they form a conceptual harmony in Clausewitz's
thought -- and thus in our dominant understandings of politics and war -- tragically violent 'choices' will continue to

by pondering a normative problem that arises out of its

analysis: if the divisive ontology of the national security state and the violent and
instrumental vision of 'enframing' have, as Heidegger suggests, come to define
being and drive 'out every other possibility of revealing being' , how can they be escaped?26
be made. The essay concludes

How can other choices and alternatives be found and enacted? How is there any scope for agency and resistance in
the face of them? Their social and discursive power -- one that aims to take up the entire space of the political -needs to be respected and understood. However, we are far from powerless in the face of them. The need is to
critique dominant images of political being and dominant ways of securing that being at the same time, and to act
and choose such that we bring into the world a more sustainable, peaceful and non-violent global rule of the
political. Friend and Enemy: Violent Ontologies of the Nation-State In his Politics Among Nations Hans Morgenthau
stated that 'the national interest of a peace-loving nation can only be defined in terms of national security, which is
the irreducible minimum that diplomacy must defend with adequate power and without compromise'. While

in
a context where security was in practice defined expansively, as synonymous with a
state's broadest geopolitical and economic 'interests', what was revealing about his
formulation was not merely the ontological centrality it had, but the sense of
urgency and priority he accorded to it: it must be defended 'without compromise'.27
Morgenthau defined security relatively narrowly -- as the 'integrity of the national territory and its institutions' --

Morgenthau was a thoughtful and complex thinker, and understood well the complexities and dangers of using
armed force. However his

formulation reflected an influential view about the significance of

the political good termed 'security'. When this is combined with the way in which
security was conceived in modern political thought as an existential condition -- a sine
qua non of life and sovereign political existence -- and then married to war and instrumental
action, it provides a basic underpinning for either the limitless resort to strategic
violence without effective constraint, or the perseverance of limited war (with its
inherent tendencies to escalation) as a permanent feature of politics. While he was no militarist, Morgenthau
did say elsewhere (in, of all places, a far-reaching critique of nuclear strategy ) that the 'quantitative
and qualitative competition for conventional weapons is a rational instrument of
international politics'.28 The conceptual template for such an image of national security state can be found
in the work of Thomas Hobbes, with his influential conception of the political community as
a tight unity of sovereign and people in which their bodies meld with his own to form a 'Leviathan', and which must

His image of effective security and sovereignty

was one that was intolerant of internal difference and dissent, legitimating a strong
state with coercive and exceptional powers to preserve order and sameness . This
was a vision not merely of political order but of existential identity, set off against a range of
existential others who were sources of threat, backwardness, instability or
incongruity.29 It also, in a way set out with frightening clarity by the theorist Carl Schmitt and the
philosopher Georg Hegel, exchanged internal unity, identity and harmony for permanent
alienation from other such communities (states). Hegel presaged Schmitt's thought with his
be defended from enemies within and without.

argument that individuality and the state are single moments of 'mind in its freedom' which 'has an infinitely
negative relation to itself, and hence its essential character from its own point of view is its singleness':

Individuality is awareness of one's existence as a unit in sharp distinction from others. It manifests itself
here in the state as a relation to other states, each of which is autonomous vis-a-vis
the others...this negative relation of the state to itself is embodied in the world as the relation of one state to
another and as if the negative were something external.30 Schmitt is important both for understanding the way in
which such alienation is seen as a definitive way of imagining and limiting political communities, and for
understanding how such a rigid delineation is linked to the inevitability and perpetuation of war. Schmitt argued

that the existence of a state 'presupposes the political', which must be understood
through 'the specific political distinction...between friend and enemy'. The enemy is
'the other, the stranger; and it sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially
intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in an extreme case
conflicts with him are possible'.31 The figure of the enemy is constitutive of the
state as 'the specific entity of a people'.32 Without it society is not political and a people cannot be
said to exist: Only the actual participants can correctly recognise, understand and judge the concrete situation and
settle the extreme case of conflict...to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent's way of life and

Schmitt links this

stark ontology to war when he states that the political is only authentic 'when a
fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the
public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of
men, particularly to the whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a
relationship...in its entirety the state as an organised political entity decides for
itself the friend-enemy distinction'.34 War, in short, is an existential condition: the
entire life of a human being is a struggle and every human being is symbolically a
combatant. The friend, enemy and combat concepts receive their real meaning
precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing. War follows
from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy.35 Schmitt claims that his theory is
therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one's own form of existence.33

not biased towards war as a choice ('It is by no means as though the political signifies nothing but devastating war
and every political deed a military action...it neither favours war nor militarism, neither imperialism nor pacifism')

When such a theory takes the form of a social

discourse (which it does in a general form) such an ontology can only support, as a kind of
but it is hard to accept his caveat at face value.36

originary ground, the basic Clausewitzian assumption that war can be a rational way
of resolving political conflicts -- because the import of Schmitt's argument is that such 'political' conflicts
are ultimately expressed through the possibility of war. As he says: 'to the enemy concept belongs the ever-present
possibility of combat'.37 Where Schmitt meets Clausewitz, as I explain further below, the existential and

closed circle of
existential and strategic reason generates a number of dangers . Firstly, the
emergence of conflict can generate military action almost automatically simply
because the world is conceived in terms of the distinction between friend and
enemy; because the very existence of the other constitutes an unacceptable threat, rather than a chain of
rationalistic ontologies of war join into a closed circle of mutual support and justification. This

actions, judgements and decisions. (As the Israelis insisted of Hezbollah, they 'deny our right to exist'.) This effaces
agency, causality and responsibility from policy and political discourse: our actions can be conceived as
independent of the conflict or quarantined from critical enquiry, as necessities that achieve an instrumental
purpose but do not contribute to a new and unpredictable causal chain.

Similarly the Clausewitzian idea

of force -- which, by transporting a Newtonian category from the natural into the social sciences, assumes the
very effect it seeks -- further encourages the resort to military violence. We ignore the
complex history of a conflict, and thus the alternative paths to its resolution that such
historical analysis might provide, by portraying conflict as fundamental and existential in
nature; as possibly containable or exploitable, but always irresolvable. Dominant portrayals of the war on
terror, and the Israeli-Arab conflict, are arguably examples of such ontologies in action. Secondly, the
militaristic force of such an ontology is visible , in Schmitt, in the absolute sense of
vulnerability whereby a people can judge whether their 'adversary intends to
negate his opponent's way of life'.38 Evoking the kind of thinking that would become controversial in
the Bush doctrine, Hegel similarly argues that: ...a state may regard its infinity and honour as at stake in each of its
concerns, however minute, and it is all the more inclined to susceptibility to injury the more its strong individuality
is impelled as a result of long domestic peace to seek and create a sphere of activity abroad. ....the state is in
essence mind and therefore cannot be prepared to stop at just taking notice of an injury after it has actually

Identity,
even more than physical security or autonomy, is put at stake in such thinking and
can be defended and redeemed through warfare (or, when taken to a further
extreme of an absolute demonisation and dehumanisation of the other, by mass
killing, 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide ). However anathema to a classical realist like Morgenthau, for
occurred. On the contrary, there arises in addition as a cause of strife the idea of such an injury...39

whom prudence was a core political virtue, these have been influential ways of defining national security and
defence during the twentieth century and persists into the twenty-first. They infused Cold War strategy in the
United States (with the key policy document NSC68 stating that 'the Soviet-led assault on free institutions is
worldwide now, and ... a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere')40 and frames dominant
Western responses to the threat posed by Al Qaeda and like groups (as Tony Blair admitted in 2006, 'We could have
chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values.')41 It has also become influential, in a
particularly tragic and destructive way, in Israel, where memories of the Holocaust and (all too common)
statements by Muslim and Arab leaders rejecting Israel's existence are mobilised by conservatives to justify military
adventurism and a rejectionist policy towards the Palestinians. On the reverse side of such ontologies of national
insecurity we find pride and hubris, the belief that martial preparedness and action are vital or healthy for the
existence of a people. Clausewitz's thought is thoroughly imbued with this conviction. For example, his definition of
war as an act of policy does not refer merely to the policy of cabinets, but expresses the objectives and will of
peoples: When whole communities go to war -- whole peoples, and especially civilized peoples -- the reason always
lies in some political situation and the occasion is always due to some political object. War, therefore, is an act of
policy.42 Such a perspective prefigures Schmitt's definition of the 'political' (an earlier translation reads 'war,
therefore, is a political act'), and thus creates an inherent tension between its tendency to fuel the escalation of
conflict and Clausewitz's declared aim, in defining war as policy, to prevent war becoming 'a complete,
untrammelled, absolute manifestation of violence'.43 Likewise his argument that war is a 'trinity' of people (the
source of 'primordial violence, hatred and enmity'), the military (who manage the 'play of chance and probability')
and government (which achieve war's 'subordination as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason
alone') merges the existential and rationalistic conceptions of war into a theoretical unity.44 The idea that national
identities could be built and redeemed through war derived from the 'romantic counter-revolution' in philosophy
which opposed the cosmopolitanism of Kant with an emphasis on the absolute state -- as expressed by Hegel's
Philosophy of Right, Bismarkian Realpolitik and politicians like Wilhelm Von Humbolt. Humbolt, a Prussian minister of
Education, wrote that war 'is one of the most wholesome manifestations that plays a role in the education of the

human race', and urged the formation of a national army 'to inspire the citizen with the spirit of true war'. He stated
that war 'alone gives the total structure the strength and the diversity without which facility would be weakness and
unity would be void'.45 In the Phenomenology of Mind Hegel made similar arguments that to for individuals to find
their essence 'Government has from time to time to shake them to the very centre by war'.46 The historian Azar
Gat points to the similarity of Clausewitz's arguments that 'a people and a nation can hope for a strong position in
the world only if national character and familiarity with war fortify each other by continual interaction' to Hegel's
vision of the ethical good of war in his Philosophy of Right.47 Likewise Michael Shapiro sees Clausewitz and Hegel
as alike in seeing war 'as an ontological investment in both individual and national completion...Clausewitz figures
war as passionate ontological commitment rather than cool political reason...war is a major aspect of being.'48
Hegel's text argues that war is 'a work of freedom' in which 'the individual's substantive duty' merges with the
'independence and sovereignty of the state'.49 Through war, he argues, the ethical health of peoples is preserved
in their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from
the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so the corruption in nations would be the product of a
prolonged, let alone 'perpetual' peace.50 Hegel indeed argues that 'sacrifice on behalf of the individuality of the
state is a substantial tie between the state and all its members and so is a universal duty...if the state as such, if its
autonomy, is in jeopardy, all its citizens are duty bound to answer the summons to its defence'.51 Furthermore, this
is not simply a duty, but a form of self-realisation in which the individual dissolves into the higher unity of the state:
The intrinsic worth of courage as a disposition of mind is to be found in the genuine, absolute, final end, the
sovereignty of the state. The work of courage is to actualise this end, and the means to this end is the sacrifice of
personal actuality. This form of experience thus contains the harshness of extreme contradictions: a self-sacrifice
which yet is the real existence of one's freedom; the maximum self-subsistence of individuality, yet only a cog
playing its part in the mechanism of an external organisation; absolute obedience, renunciation of personal opinions
and reasonings, in fact complete absence of mind, coupled with the most intense and comprehensive presence of
mind and decision in the moment of acting; the most hostile and so most personal action against individuals,
coupled with an attitude of complete indifference or even liking towards them as individuals.52 A more frank
statement of the potentially lethal consequences of patriotism -- and its simultaneously physical and conceptual
annihilation of the individual human being -- is rarely to be found, one that is repeated today in countless national
discourses and the strategic world-view in general. (In contrast, one of Kant's fundamental objections to war was
that it involved using men 'as mere machines or instruments'.53) Yet however bizarre and contradictory Hegel's
argument, it constitutes a powerful social ontology: an apparently irrefutable discourse of being. It actualises the
convergence of war and the social contract in the form of the national security state. Strategic Reason and Scientific

such an account of the nationalist ontology of war and security provides

only a general insight into the perseverance of military violence as a core element
of politics. It does not explain why so many policymakers think military violence
works. As I argued earlier, such an ontology is married to a more rationalistic form of
strategic thought that claims to link violent means to political ends predictably and
controllably, and which, by doing so, combines military action and national purposes
into a common -- and thoroughly modern -- horizon of certainty. Given Hegel's desire to
Truth By itself,

decisively distil and control the dynamic potentials of modernity in thought, it is helpful to focus on the modernity of
this ontology -- one that is modern in its adherence to modern scientific models of truth, reality and technological
progress, and in its insistence on imposing images of scientific truth from the physical sciences (such as
mathematics and physics) onto human behaviour, politics and society. For example, the military theorist and
historian Martin van Creveld has argued that one of the reasons Clausewitz was so influential was that his 'ideas
seemed to have chimed in with the rationalistic, scientific, and technological outlook associated with the industrial
revolution'.54 Set into this epistemological matrix, modern politics and government engages in a sweeping project
of mastery and control in which all of the world's resources -- mineral, animal, physical, human -- are made part of a
machinic process of which war and violence are viewed as normal features. These are the deeper claims and
implications of Clausewitzian strategic reason. One of the most revealing contemporary examples comes from the
writings (and actions) of Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor and later U.S. National Security Adviser and Secretary
of State. He wrote during the Vietnam war that after 1945 U.S. foreign policy was based 'on the assumption that
technology plus managerial skills gave us the ability to reshape the international system and to bring about
domestic transformations in emerging countries'. This 'scientific revolution' had 'for all practical purposes, removed
technical limits from the exercise of power in foreign policy'.55 Kissinger's conviction was based not merely in his
pride in the vast military and bureaucratic apparatus of the United States, but in a particular epistemology (theory
of knowledge). Kissinger asserted that the West is 'deeply committed to the notion that the real world is external to
the observer, that knowledge consists of recording and classifying data -- the more accurately the better'. This, he
claimed, has since the Renaissance set the West apart from an 'undeveloped' world that contains 'cultures that
have escaped the early impact of Newtonian thinking' and remain wedded to the 'essentially pre-Newtonian view
that the real world is almost entirely internal to the observer'.56 At the same time, Kissinger's hubris and hunger for
control was beset by a corrosive anxiety: that, in an era of nuclear weapons proliferation and constant military
modernisation, of geopolitical stalemate in Vietnam, and the emergence and militancy of new post-colonial states,
order and mastery were harder to define and impose. He worried over the way 'military bipolarity' between the

superpowers had 'encouraged political multipolarity', which 'does not guarantee stability. Rigidity is diminished, but
so is manageability...equilibrium is difficult to achieve among states widely divergent in values, goals, expectations
and previous experience' (emphasis added). He mourned that 'the greatest need of the contemporary international
system is an agreed concept of order'.57 Here were the driving obsessions of the modern rational statesman based
around a hunger for stasis and certainty that would entrench U.S. hegemony: For the two decades after 1945, our
international activities were based on the assumption that technology plus managerial skills gave us the ability to
reshape the international system and to bring about domestic transformations in "emerging countries". This direct
"operational" concept of international order has proved too simple. Political multipolarity makes it impossible to
impose an American design. Our deepest challenge will be to evoke the creativity of a pluralistic world, to base
order on political multipolarity even though overwhelming military strength will remain with the two

Kissinger's statement revealed that such cravings for order and

certainty continually confront chaos, resistance and uncertainty: clay that won't be
worked, flesh that will not yield, enemies that refuse to surrender . This is one of the most
superpowers.58

powerful lessons of the Indochina wars, which were to continue in a phenomenally destructive fashion for six years
after Kissinger wrote these words. Yet as his sinister, Orwellian exhortation to 'evoke the creativity of a pluralistic
world' demonstrated, Kissinger's hubris was undiminished. This is a vicious, historic irony :

a desire to control
nature, technology, society and human beings that is continually frustrated, but
never abandoned or rethought. By 1968 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the rationalist
policymaker par excellence, had already decided that U.S. power and technology could not prevail in Vietnam;
Nixon and Kissinger's refusal to accept this conclusion, to abandon their Cartesian illusions, was to condemn
hundreds of thousands more to die in Indochina and the people of Cambodia to two more decades of horror and
misery.59 In 2003 there would be a powerful sense of dja vu as another Republican Administration crowned more
than decade of failed and destructive policy on Iraq with a deeply controversial and divisive war to remove Saddam

with the lessons of Vietnam, revolutionary resistance, and rapid

geopolitical transformation, we are witness to an enduring political and cultural theme: of a
craving for order, control and certainty in the face of continual uncertainty . Closely
Hussein from power. In this struggle

related to this anxiety was the way that Kissinger's thinking -- and that of McNamara and earlier imperialists like the
British Governor of Egypt Cromer -- was embedded in instrumental images of technology and the machine: the
machine as both a tool of power and an image of social and political order. In his essay 'The Government of Subject
Races' Cromer envisaged effective imperial rule -- over numerous societies and billions of human beings -- as best
achieved by a central authority working 'to ensure the harmonious working of the different parts of the machine'.60
Kissinger analogously invoked the virtues of 'equilibrium', 'manageability' and 'stability' yet, writing some six
decades later, was anxious that technological progress no longer brought untroubled control: the Westernising
'spread of technology and its associated rationality...does not inevitably produce a similar concept of reality'.61

We

sense the rational policymaker's frustrated desire: the world is supposed to work
like a machine, ordered by a form of power and governmental reason which deploys machines and whose
desires and processes are meant to run along ordered, rational lines like a machine. Kissinger's desire was little
different from that of Cromer who, wrote Edward Said: ...envisions a seat of power in the West and radiating out
from it towards the East a great embracing machine, sustaining the central authority yet commanded by it. What
the machine's branches feed into it from the East -- human material, material wealth, knowledge, what have you -is processed by the machine, then converted into more power...the immediate translation of mere Oriental matter

This desire for order in the shadow of chaos and uncertainty -- the
constant war with an intractable and volatile matter -- has deep roots in modern
thought, and was a major impetus to the development of technological reason and
its supporting theories of knowledge. As Kissinger's claims about the West's Newtonian desire for the
'accurate' gathering and classification of 'data' suggest, modern strategy, foreign policy and Realpolitik
have been thrust deep into the apparently stable soil of natural science, in the hope
of finding immovable and unchallengeable roots there. While this process has origins in ancient
into useful substance.62

Judaic and Greek thought, it crystallised in philosophical terms most powerfully during and after the Renaissance.
The key figures in this process were Francis Bacon, Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Ren Descartes, who all combined a

hunger for political and ontological certainty, a positivist epistemology and a nave
faith in the goodness of invention. Bacon sought to create certainty and order, and with it a new human
power over the world, through a new empirical methodology based on a harmonious combination of experiment,
the senses and the understanding. With this method, he argued, we can 'derive hope from a purer alliance of the
faculties (the experimental and rational) than has yet been attempted'.63 In a similar move, Descartes sought to
conjure certainty from uncertainty through the application of a new method that moved progressively out from a
few basic certainties (the existence of God, the certitude of individual consciousness and a divinely granted faculty

of judgement) in a search for pure fixed truths. Mathematics formed the ideal image of this method, with its strict
logical reasoning, its quantifiable results and its uncanny insights into the hidden structure of the cosmos.64 Earlier,
Galileo had argued that scientists should privilege 'objective', quantifiable qualities over 'merely perceptible' ones;
that 'only by means of an exclusively quantitative analysis could science attain certain knowledge of the world'.65

Such doctrines of mathematically verifiable truth were to have powerful echoes in the 20th
Century, in the ascendancy of systems analysis, game theory, cybernetics and
computing in defense policy and strategic decisions, and in the awesome scientific
breakthroughs of nuclear physics, which unlocked the innermost secrets of matter and energy and
applied the most advanced applications of mathematics and computing to create the atomic bomb. Yet this
new scientific power was marked by a terrible irony : as even Morgenthau understood, the
control over matter afforded by the science could never be translated into the
control of the weapons themselves, into political utility and rational strategy. 66 Bacon
thought of the new scientific method not merely as way of achieving a purer access to truth and epistemological
certainty, but as liberating a new power that would enable the creation of a new kind of Man. He opened the Novum
Organum with the statement that 'knowledge and human power are synonymous', and later wrote of his
'determination...to lay a firmer foundation, and extend to a greater distance the boundaries of human power and
dignity'.67 In a revealing and highly negative comparison between 'men's lives in the most polished countries of
Europe and in any wild and barbarous region of the new Indies' -- one that echoes in advance Kissinger's distinction
between post-and pre-Newtonian cultures -- Bacon set out what was at stake in the advancement of empirical
science: anyone making this comparison, he remarked, 'will think it so great, that man may be said to be a god unto
man'.68 We may be forgiven for blinking, but in Bacon's thought 'man' was indeed in the process of stealing a new
fire from the heavens and seizing God's power over the world for itself. Not only would the new empirical science
lead to 'an improvement of mankind's estate, and an increase in their power over nature', but would reverse the
primordial humiliation of the Fall of Adam: For man, by the fall, lost at once his state of innocence, and his empire
over creation, both of which can be partially recovered even in this life, the first by religion and faith, the second by
the arts and sciences. For creation did not become entirely and utterly rebellious by the curse, but in consequence
of the Divine decree, 'in the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread' ; she is now compelled by our
labours (not assuredly by our disputes or magical ceremonies) at length to afford mankind in some degree his
bread...69 There is a breathtaking, world-creating hubris in this statement -- one that, in many ways, came to
characterise western modernity itself, and which is easily recognisable in a generation of modern technocrats like
Kissinger. The Fall of Adam was the Judeo-Christian West's primal creation myth, one that marked humankind as
flawed and humbled before God, condemned to hardship and ambivalence. Bacon forecast here a return to Eden,
but one of man's own making. This truly was the death of God, of putting man into God's place, and no pious
appeals to the continuity or guidance of faith could disguise the awesome epistemological violence which now
subordinated creation to man. Bacon indeed argued that inventions are 'new creations and imitations of divine
works'. As such, there is nothing but good in science: 'the introduction of great inventions is the most distinguished

And what
the new method and

of human actions...inventions are a blessing and a benefit without injuring or afflicting any'.70

would be mankind's 'bread', the rewards of its new 'empire over creation'? If

invention brought modern medicine, social welfare, sanitation, communications, education and comfort, it also

enabled the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and two world wars; napalm, the
B52, the hydrogen bomb, the Kalashnikov rifle and military strategy . Indeed some of
the 20th Century's most far-reaching inventions -- radar, television, rocketry,
computing, communications, jet aircraft, the Internet -- would be the product of
drives for national security and militarisation. Even the inventions Bacon thought so marvellous
and transformative -- printing, gunpowder and the compass -- brought in their wake upheaval and tragedy: printing,
dogma and bureaucracy; gunpowder, the rifle and the artillery battery; navigation, slavery and the genocide of

In short, the legacy of the new empirical science would be

ambivalence as much as certainty; degradation as much as enlightenment; the
destruction of nature as much as its utilisation.
indigenous peoples.

Extra solvency card

Securitization fails, justifies state violence against vulnerable populations,
and only reinforces insecurity and the impacts it tries to solve
Ahmed 12

(Nafeez, 1/5/12, Department of International Relations , University of Sussex , UK, Global Change,
Peace & Security: formerly Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14781158.2011.601854#.U76Xp_ldWSo)//RTF
Instead, both realist and liberal orthodox IR approaches focus on different aspects of interstate behaviour,
conflictual and cooperative respectively, but each lacks the capacity to grasp that the unsustainable trajectory of
state and inter-state behaviour is only explicable in the context of a wider global system concurrently overexploiting the biophysical environment in which it is embedded. They are, in other words, unable to address the
relationship of the inter-state system itself to the biophysical environment as a key analytical category for
understanding the acceleration of global crises. They simultaneously therefore cannot recognise the embeddedness
of the economy in society and the concomitant politically-constituted nature of economics.84 Hence, they

neglect the profound irrationality of collective state behaviour, which systematically

erodes this relationship, globalising insecurity on a massive scale in the very
process of seeking security.85 In Coxs words, because positivist IR theory does not question the present
order [it instead] has the effect of legitimising and reifying it.86 Orthodox IR sanitises globallydestructive collective inter-state behaviour as a normal function of instrumental
reason thus rationalising what are clearly deeply irrational collective human
actions that threaten to permanently erode state power and security by destroying
the very conditions of human existence. Indeed, the prevalence of orthodox IR as a body of
disciplinary beliefs, norms and prescriptions organically conjoined with actual policy-making in the international
system highlights the extent to which both realism and liberalism are ideologically implicated in the acceleration of

incapacity to recognise and critically interrogate

how prevailing social, political and economic structures are driving global crisis
acceleration has led to the proliferation of symptom-led solutions focused on the
expansion of state/regime militarypolitical power rather than any attempt to
transform root structural causes.88 It is in this context that, as the prospects for meaningful reform
global systemic crises.87 By the same token, the

through inter-state cooperation appear increasingly nullified under the pressure of actors with a vested interest in
sustaining prevailing geopolitical and economic structures ,

states have resorted progressively more

to militarised responses designed to protect the concurrent structure of the
international system from dangerous new threats. In effect, the failure of orthodox
approaches to accurately diagnose global crises, directly accentuates a tendency to securitise them and
this, ironically, fuels the proliferation of violent conflict and militarisation responsible for
magnified global insecurity. Securitisation refers to a speech act an act of
labelling whereby political authorities identify particular issues or
incidents as an existential threat which, because of their extreme nature,
justify going beyond the normal security measures that are within the rule
of law. It thus legitimises resort to special extra-legal powers. By labelling issues a
matter of security, therefore, states are able to move them outside the remit of
democratic decision-making and into the realm of emergency powers, all in the
name of survival itself. Far from representing a mere aberration from democratic state practice, this
discloses a deeper dual structure of the state in its institutionalisation of the
capacity to mobilise extraordinary extra-legal military police measures in purported
response to an existential danger.89 The problem in the context of global ecological, economic and
energy crises is that such levels of emergency mobilisation and militarisation
have no positive impact on the very global crises generating new security
challenges, and are thus entirely disproportionate.90 All that remains to examine is on

the surface of the international system (geopolitical competition, the balance of power, international regimes,
globalisation and so on), phenomena which are dislocated from their structural causes by way of being unable to
recognise the biophysically-embedded and politically-constituted social relations of which they are comprised. The

orthodox IR has no means of responding to global systemic crises

other than to reduce them to their symptoms. Indeed, orthodox IR theory has
largely responded to global systemic crises not with new theory, but with the
expanded application of existing theory to new security challenges such as lowintensity intra-state conflicts; inequality and poverty; environmental degradation;
international criminal activities including drugs and arms trafficking; proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction; and international terrorism .91 Although the majority of such
new security challenges are non-military in origin whether their referents are states or individuals the
inadequacy of systemic theoretical frameworks to diagnose them means they are
primarily examined through the lenses of military-political power. 92 In other words, the
escalation of global ecological, energy and economic crises is recognised not as
evidence that the current organisation of the global political economy is
fundamentally unsustainable, requiring urgent transformation, but as vindicating
the necessity for states to radicalise the exertion of their militarypolitical capacities
to maintain existing power structures, to keep the lid on.93 Global crises are thus
viewed as amplifying factors that could mobilise the popular will in ways that
challenge existing political and economic structures, which it is presumed (given
that state power itself is constituted by these structures) deserve protection . This
consequence is that

justifies the states adoption of extra-legal measures outside the normal sphere of democratic politics. In the

this counter-democratic trend-line can result in a growing

propensity to problematise potentially recalcitrant populations rationalising
violence toward them as a control mechanism. 3.2 From theory to policy Consequently, for the
most part, the policy implications of orthodox IR approaches involve a redundant
conceptualisation of global systemic crises purely as potential threat-multipliers of
traditional security issues such as political instability around the world, the collapse
of governments and the creation of terrorist safe havens. Climate change will serve
to amplify the threat of international terrorism, particularly in regions with large
populations and scarce resources.94 The US Army, for instance, depicts climate change as a stresscontext of global crisis impacts,

multiplier that will exacerbate tensions and complicate American foreign policy; while the EU perceives it as a

this generates an
excessive preoccupation not with the causes of global crisis acceleration and how to
ameliorate them through structural transformation, but with their purportedly
inevitable impacts, and how to prepare for them by controlling problematic
populations. Paradoxically, this securitisation of global crises does not render us
safer. Instead, by necessitating more violence, while inhibiting preventive action, it
guarantees greater insecurity. Thus, a recent US Department of Defense report explores the future of
threat-multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability.95 In practice,

international conflict up to 2050. It warns of resource competition induced by growing populations and expanding
economies, particularly due to a projected youth bulge in the South, which will consume ever increasing amounts
of food, water and energy. This will prompt a return to traditional security threats posed by emerging near-peers
as we compete globally for depleting natural resources and overseas markets. Finally, climate change will
compound these stressors by generating humanitarian crises, population migrations and other complex
emergencies.96

1AC Satire Supplements

All the Oils!

Anthro preempt
But seriously, dont worry friends we arent anthropocentricwell drill animals too!
The Onion 06 (The Onion, 11/10/06, Satirical news source, Bush Urges Expanded Drilling Of Alaskan
Wildlife, http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-urges-expanded-drilling-of-alaskan-wildlife,2063/)//RTF
WASHINGTON, DCFollowing a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court that blocked the sale of 1.7 million acres of

Bush urged Congress Tuesday to pass an appropriations bill

that would enable expanded drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's animals.
President Bush says the U.S. must shed its dependence on drilling foreign wildlife. "There are over 100
billion tons of untapped, domestic wildlife lying beneath, on, and above the surface
of Alaska's North Slope region," said Bush during a White House press conference. "We have an
obligation not only to our society, but to future generations, to begin
drilling these polar bears, grizzlies, harbor porpoises, Roosevelt elks, sea
otters, muskrats, and snowshoe hares immediately." According to Secretary Of The
federally protected caribou, President

Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who recently toured the Lake Teshekpuk area with a team of bio-mineralogists, one in four
animals drilled in early tests have shown positive yield. "We can achieve our goal without disturbing the delicate
balance of the ecosystem," said Kempthorne, looking on as rig operators took exploratory core samples of 20
bearded seals in order to gauge the mammals' interior density. "But if the government opens up the nearly 200
species of birds, fish, and marine and land mammals to public drilling, the U.S. would be capable of churning out
over 9.3 billion barrels of wildlife each yearmore than three times the amount we currently drill." Wildlife
prospectors in other parts of Alaska applaud Bush's position, saying that ,

if funding is increased, drillers

will be able to tap larger, higher-yield animals such as grizzly bears and musk oxen.
"The technology is there, but there's little economic incentive to drill anything larger
than timber wolves," said Cal Fowler, an independent prospector and former wildcat driller. "With more
federal money we can invest in necessary hardware, such as more durable annular diamond-impregnated drill bits,
which can bore two-inch diameter holes deep through a solid bull-walrus midsection in seconds." Workers near
Alaska's Lake Teshekpuk take a core sample from a grizzly bear cub. Drill foremen have already begun digging
shallow exploratory holes through the surface flesh of over 5 million animals to provide workspace for the drillers
and their equipment. Once this step is complete, an electrical generator powered by a large diesel engine will
plunge rotating carbide-steel-tipped drill bits through the animal, boring through the skin, bone, or blubber at
speeds of up to 6,500 rpm. The drillers will then guide the direction of the borehole using top-drive rotary steerable
wellbores, which allow them to drill through targeted areas in the wildlife with incredible precision. Walking through
a field of steadily pumping Canada lynx, Fowler defended wildlife drilling as "one of the most environmentally
responsible methods of drilling," saying that it is a renewable resource, and the ecologically sensitive wildlife refuge
is almost completely unaffected since pre-existing environmental laws ensure that the drilling of individual animals
will not damage the environment. Energy giant ExxonMobil has already begun to widen its wildlife-drilling efforts in
response to the Bush Administration's stance. "We have set up an offshore production platform capable of
efficiently extracting over 15,000 Arctic grayling fish from the Beaufort Sea each day, and then drilling them,"
ExxonMobil Chief Engineer For Wildlife Drilling Operations Frank Salinas said. "And advances in horizontal directional
drilling may soon allow us to simultaneously drill through two arctic foxes three miles apart." "It's an exciting time
to be in the wildlife-drilling field," Salinas added. Bush's call for more wildlife drilling has come under fire by
alternate wildlife-use advocates, who call his policy shortsighted. " The

administration should be

encouraging research into viable new technologies ," said Sylvia Hermann, chairman of
Advocates For Cleaner-Burning Fauna. "The energy produced by solar generators could be used to incinerate vast
herds of moose, even in the coldest winter months. Wind-produced electricity could electrocute Beluga whales in
their own habitats, with no need for offshore drilling, and hydroelectric dams could be used to drown grizzly bears.
Perhaps one day geothermic heat could be harnessed to broil entire wildlife-rich regions alive." Continued Hermann,
"It's vital that we preserve the arctic wildlife so that our children, and our children's children, will still have animals
to drill when they grow up." The Bush administration is also proposing the creation of a Strategic Wildlife Preserve, a
series of 15-million-cubic-meter above-ground tanks that would store an emergency supply of over 700 million
tightly packed animals.

God Add-On
Not using oil makes God cry
Edwards, 12 a writer for The Raw Story (David, Bryan Fischer: Enormously
insensitive to hurt Gods feelings by not using oil, The Raw Story,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/bryan-fischer-enormously-insensitive-tohurt-gods-feelings-by-not-using-oil/)//IS
Fischer likened the situation to a birthday present he was given at the age of six. I
opened up a birthday present that I didnt like, and I said it right out, Oh, I dont like
those, the radio host recalled. And it just crushed and the person that gave me
gift was there. You know, I just kind of blurted it out, I dont like those. And it just
crushed that person. It was enormously insensitive of me to do that. And you
think, thats kind of how were treating God when hes given us these gifts
of abundant and inexpensive and efective fuel sources, Fischer added. And

we dont thank him for it and we dont use it. You know,

God

buried those treasures there because he loves to see us find them.

has


XO Preempt
Obamas a communist and the Russians are going to sneak
attack us
Hodges 13 (Dave, 2/26/13, award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college
basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials
and articles in several publications, Russia Is Preparing To Attack America,
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/02/26/russia-is-preparing-to-attack-america2558/)//RTF

United States has not been attacked on the home front for 200 years dating back to the
War of 1812. There exists a plethora of confirming information to support the fact that Americas days may
be numbered and that we are totally unprepared for what is coming . Russia, through
the traitorous cooperation and complicity of President Obama, is positioning its
assets in order to attack Alaska. Before I piece together the many elements of the planned Russian
surprise attack, it is important for America to understand that it takes a communist to

Obama was bred by communists,

raised by communists, educated at the finest schools with
communist money, his political career was launched by
communists and his controllers in the White House are
communists. Part one of this series will clearly establish the fact that Obama is the lynchpin of a
bring communism to America.

multigenerational plan to hand America over to the Russians and to the Chinese communists. Obama did not just
wake up one day and decide to weaken American defenses and hand over the country to the Russian communists.

Obama was groomed for this position for the past several years.

He is indeed

the right communist, at the right time, whose mission is to bring America the
most crippling form of communism the world has ever seen. Russian Defectors Have Warned the US About This
Moment

High-profile Soviet defectors have been telling American intelligence agencies

Russians have engaged in a

multigenerational plot to destabilize America prior to the
takeover in which both the Russians and the Chinese will
unleash a ferocious military assault upon our country. To
for decades that the

high-ranking defector, Sergei Tretyakov, who repeatedly

warned Americans that Russias core government had never abandoned the Cold
War and still aimed to destroy the United States . In his later years, he said his main goal was to
wake up the American people to the deadly threat posed to them by the former Soviet Union. His death was
reported as a cardiac event, however, his family remains suspicious. Tretyakov
joined a plethora of others who defected from the former Soviet Union in order to
warn the American people about a planned attack sponsored by the Russian government with
assistance from within the American government. Former Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, a well renowned
media/propaganda expert defected to the United States. in 1970, and subsequently
exposed the KGBs subversive tactics against American society. Yuri Bezmenov has
match feature USA-RUSSIA/SPYThe

conducted a number of interviews in which he explains how Marxist ideology is deconstructing Americas values by
controlling the media and which would ultimately serve to demoralize the country, destabilize the economy, and
provoke crises in order to Sovietize the United States. Bezmenov is

well known for revealing Russias

doctrine of ideological subversion, a slow, long-term multi-decade process of

media-based brainwashing in which the sole purpose is to confuse, confound, and
destroy the moral base of America. Can anyone argue that our countrys values
represent a debasement of our national sense of morality? Every perversion known
to mankind in now honored in our media. Christians are out and hedonists are in.
Loyal husbands and fathers are out and a philandering lifestyle is a honored
virtue. On this point, the Russians have won. Former Russian Colonel Stanislav Lunev has
the distinction of being the highest ranking Russian military officer to defect to the
United States after doing so in 1992, after Boris Yeltsin came to power. Lunevs information
was considered to be so volatile, but accurate, that the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA placed
Lunev, where he remains to this day, in the FBIs Witness Protection Program. Lunev
reported that Russias military, despite losing the cold war, continues in its war
preparations which are designed to conquer the United States by stealth Anatoliy
Golitsyn, a high-ranking KGB defector who fled to the United States in order to warn
Americans about the secret Russian plan to attack the United States. Golitsyn is
generally considered to be among the first and most revealing on the subject of the
secret Russian plans to attack. Having authored the The Perestroika Deception in which Golitsyn wrote
about the deceitful intent behind the Leninist strategy in which the present-day
Communists are actively pursuing as they fake American style democratization
efforts in Russia. According to Golitsyn, the short-term strategic objective of the Russians is to
achieve a technological convergence with the West solely on Russian terms and
mostly through a series of one-sided disarmament agreements. According to Golitsyn,
after the United States military is eliminated as a strategic threat to Russia, the
long-range strategic Russian plan is to pursue Lenins goal of replacing nation states
with collectivist model of regional governments as a stepping stone to global

Russia, after lulling

America to sleep, will join with China in order to attack
the United States from both the outside and inside as he
detailed that the Soviets and the Chinese will be
officially reconciled and enact a scissors strategy in
which China will attack the US through the southern
border and Russia through northern border by way of
Alaska. As the reader will clearly see in the following paragraphs, Obama is the catalyst in making these longgovernance. In order to achieve their final goal, Golitsyn states that

Obama has been surrounded by

nothing but communists for all of his life. From Obamas real father, Frank Marshall
Davis, to the husband and wife communist terrorist team of Bill Ayers and Bernadine
Dohrn from the Weathermen Underground terrorist organization, Obama has known
nothing but Marxist communist philosophy in his formative years. The late Senator, Joseph
McCarthy, is rolling over in his grave due to the fact that a sitting President has such a retrograde
pattern of communist associations and still managed to attain the presidency. Former
FBI Weatherman Task Force supervisor, Max Noel, notes that the FBI utilized a CARL test when it
conducted background checks on various suspects. The acronym CARL stands for Character,
Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty used to assess candidates fitness to hold the highest office in the
range communist plans come to fruition. Obama the Communist

country. On each of these four points of power, Obama fails and fails miserably . Like
many FBI law enforcement agents and officials, Noel was alarmed by the fact that someone like Barack Obama
could capture the presidency. For some unexplained reason, Obama was never vetted before he became a

This is an unacceptable result of our national security

system and is wholly suggestive of internal plot to allow the installation of a
blatantly communist advocate into the highest political position in America. Today,
candidate for the presidency by the FBI.

many people have been in a position to now vet the President after Obamas four years of fundamentally
transforming America. This particular series will continue to connect the dots of the secretive and nefarious
communist background of Barack Hussein Obama and tie his associations, actions and internal belief system to a

Comrade
Obamas ascension to the presidency has been a long time in the making. Interestingly,
current coup dtat which is close to capturing all of the vital elements of power in this country.

Barack Obamas past associates especially the communist terrorists which funded his Harvard legal education and
ultimately launched his political career as an Illinois state senator, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, have
been in lockstep with Obama his entire adult life. However, Dohrn and Ayers were not the first to indoctrinate
Obama with the Marxist communist philosophy. For that information, we have to begin with Frank Marshall Davis.

Obamas real father, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party
and a former Soviet Agent who was under FBI investigation for a total of 19 years. In 1948, Davis moved
from Chicago to Hawaii leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Senior White House
advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Yes, the Jarretts are communists as well. Both Jarrett and Davis wrote for a left wing
newspaper called the Chicago Defender in which they espoused a communist takeover of the United States
Government. In 1971, Davis, according to Joel Gilbert, reunited with his then nine-year-old son, Barack Obama, and
schooled him in the ways of being a good communist for the next nine years. Chicago Slum Lord, Valerie Jarrett
Chicago Slum Lord, Valerie Jarrett White House advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, were both Red Diaper
Babies, in which they were the sons and daughters of well-to-do parents who desired communism and lived out
their dreams through their childrens revolutionary activities. Other notable red-diaper babies also included Rahm
Emanuel and Eric Holder. Jarretts situation is particularly interesting in that her family and the Ayers family have
been multigenerational friends which also included a marriage between the two families. Much of the Obama
administration is a nest of communists and this should serve to gravely concern every American citizen. Following
the nine years of mentoring and parenting by Frank Davis, Obama made some very important communist
connections which ultimately led to him obtaining an impressive college education financed by some very familiar
communist activists, namely, Tom Ayers, Con Ed CEO, and then his son Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You
remember Bill and Bernardine, dont you? Bill Ayers Mug Shot Bill Ayers Mug Shot The Prairie Fire book was coauthored by Dohrn and Ayers, and, quite unbelievably, it was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedys
assassin. Former FBI informant, While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Larry Grathwohl, revealed that he
testified in a court of law that Ayers and Dohrn had direct involvement in a terrorist plot which killed San Francisco
police sergeant, Brian V. McDonnell, by a bomb made and planted by these Weathermen Underground terrorists.
Grathwohl also revealed that he asked Ayers, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do Weatherman, most with advanced
degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a
communist take over the government. Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was
likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American
Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered.
Bill and Bernardines Weather Underground had the support of Cuba, East German intelligence and the North
Vietnamese. I believe that since Obama was able to secure a second term, and with the power granted to him by
the NDAA, that he will fulfill Ayers promise to Grathwohl to murder 25 million Americans who cannot be reeducated. Obamas educational and political benefactors, Ayers and Dohrn, raised a son, Chesa Boudin, who
worked for Hugo Chavez , communist dictator in charge of Venezuela. Chesa Boudin was the child of Kathy Boudin
and David Gilbert, members of a Weather Underground spin-off group who went to prison for an armored car
robbery that resulted in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. Dohrn served seven months for her
role in the robbery and this is the reason that she is ineligible to become bar certified as an attorney. Is anyone else
uncomfortable with the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were the ones primarily responsible for educating Obama with
communist funds and then subsequently launched his political career from their living room? Well, it is true, please
read on. Allen Hulton, a 39 year veteran of the postal service, provided a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, AZ.
Sheriff investigators, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an effort toward determining whether or not former foreign college
student, Barack Obama, is eligible to be placed on Arizonas 2012 election ballot. After reviewing Hultons affidavit,
it is apparent that Ayers and Dohrn were in fact the de facto adoptive parents to this foreign student destined to
become the first illegitimate President of the United States. As a result, Obama was treated to the finest Ivy League
education that communist backed money could buy as Hulton maintains that the Ayers told him that they were
financing the education of a promising foreign student at Harvard. Hulton also testified that he met Obama while at
the Ayers home and he asked Obama what he going to do with all his education, to which Obama politely
answered, I am going to become the President. Readers should take note that this is an affidavit, and as such, is
formally considered to be evidence, not conjecture or hearsay. There can be no other conclusion that the

communist terrorist, Bill Ayers, began grooming Obama to become Americas first communist President during
Obamas college years. Their relationship continues into the present time as it is on record that Ayers visited the
White House in August of 2009. We also know that Obamas communist affiliations continued well into his adulthood
because of the good work of Joel Gilbert who discovered that Obama was active with a Weathermen Underground
support group known as The May 19th Communist Organization, in New York. Perhaps, this is why Ayers was visiting
the White House. Frank Chapman, a communist activist and a member of the communist front group known as the
World Peace Council. Chapman clearly used the term mole to describe Obama. He said Obamas political climb
and subsequent success in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was a dialectical leap ushering in a
qualitatively new era of struggle. Chapman further stated that, Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with
the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement
on the surface. This is the old revolutionary mole, not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking
through. The Communist Party USA backs Obama to the hilt. It is clear that Obama is their man! America is at a
serious crossroads. The United States is preparing to go to war with Iran and its allies, China and Russia, in a last
ditch effort to save the Petrodollar scheme as opposed to letting China and Russia buy Iranian oil in gold. If America
loses this struggle, the dollar will collapse. Americas economy is in shambles and the country can ill-afford being
purposely run into the ground by a series of red-diaper babies bent on the communist takeover of this country.
There can be no doubt about it, Barack Obama is a traitor to this country. He is the culmination of a distinct and
purposeful mufti-generational communist plot to install a communist dictator who would weaken this country to the
point that it is very vulnerable to an outside Russian attack. obama_communist_flag_cardp137872120744570903q0yk_400Russian troops have infiltrated the United States and all signs in and around
Alaska point to the fact that the Russian attack will commence through the Bering Strait and proceed southward
into British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Part two of this series will explore the emerging evidence to
support the belief that Alaska is about to be attacked by Russia.

2AC Blocks

K
Every K
Perm do both- inclusion of parody makes the critique more
accessible, opens up spaces to challenge hegemonic
knowledge production and question representations, and
forwards the critique more efectively
Mack 09

(Nancy, May 2009, associate professor of English and co-director of the Summer Institute on Writing
at Wright State University. She teaches undergraduate courses for preservice teachers, as well as graduate courses
in composition theory, memoir, and multigenre writing, Representations of the Field in Graduate Courses: Using
Parody to Question All Positions, http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1023&context=english)//RTF

parody has the potential to emphasize the relationship between two

discourses: the popular and the academic . Because the university plays a large role in
preserving traditional knowledge, academics may hold the popular in contempt.
However, parody gives some power to popular discoursesso that the students
expertise in beer consumption or recent films can have academic usefulness and
could even give them an edge in making witty commentary . Students should select
First, for my purposes,

something of great familiarity when they create a parody. My graduate classes have a diverse population of majors
and identity groups, including many types of nontraditional students. My students do make references to popular

I would expand Hutcheons definition of the popular to include any

culture located outside of school, especially home cultures and daily life
experiences. For example, an ESL student marshaled her experience with different brands of international
phone cards to call attention to the differences in theory groups. In emphasizing the relationship
between the popular and the academic, the intertextuality of parody can accentuate
discourse differencesif nothing more than in terminology. As they become more familiar
culture; however,

with theoretical jargon, students can find humor in references that would previously have been undecipherable.
Being able to laugh at jokes such as Jeff Reids Postmodern Toasties cartoon, David Gauntletts Theory Trading
Cards, or the Virtual Academic is a powerful moment in which a student can respond as a veteran academic would .

This moment of laughter does not really change the relatively low status of the newcomers, but it does
offer some respite in their travails at becoming academics . Parody is based on a revisiting of
the past, which unavoidably legitimizes the power that it subverts. Like most academics, I claim that a familiarity
with history is crucial for future subversion. Nonetheless, students emerging conception of scholarship should not

A second feature of a parody-writing assignment

is that it can present a way to make composition and rhetoric theories less alienating, thus making elite
knowledge more accessible. In her introduction, Hutcheon cites Walter Jackson Bate as suggesting that
parody is one way that a writer can deal with the rich and intimidating legacy of
the past (4). Rather than keeping knowledge at arms length, I want students to get
directly involved. Another literary theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin, discusses parodys laughter as
having the remarkable power of making an object come up close, of drawing it into
a zone of crude contact where one can finger it familiarly on all sides, turn it upside down, inside out,
be so totalizing that they have no power in relation to it.

peer at it from above and below, break open its external shell, look into its center, doubt it, take it apart,
dismember it, lay it bare and expose it, examine it freely and experiment with it (Dialogic 23).
Although he fears that modern parody has lost its radical function (Dialogic 71), the preceding quotation from
Bakhtin concretizes the writers interaction with the object of the parody and is worth sharing with students when
they later reflect on what they have learned from this assignment. Bakhtins scholarship has given us an
understanding of carnival as a critique of the normalizing forces that narrow language, giving the non-elite
momentary permission to disrupt hierarchies (Rabelais 10). In other contexts, a parody can be a dangerous threat
for its mocking of authority. Likewise, I enjoin graduate students to ponder whether their parodies could be regarded
as disrespectful by the scholars represented in their parodies. Certainly, the teachers respectful stance toward
these scholars sets the tone and models how academics should avoid caustic condemnations of their colleagues.

Writing parodies will not place students on an equal footing with senior scholars, but students report that these
assignments give them a way in, an inroad to making sense of the field. Textual intimidation affects not only how
students read and interpret texts but how they construct their position relative to the knowledge within those texts.
It is not possible to construct knowledge without learning ones relative power, as indicated by Peter H. Sawchucks
research on legitimate and illegitimate learning spaces for working-class groups. Accessibility to academic

Altruistic motives to
help students can mislead teachers into designing dumbed-down assignments,
assuming students to be incapable. This assumption cheapens the language
experience such that students become alienated from academic knowledge,
learning their subordinate position instead. This textual intimidation makes it
imperative that marginalized students be permitted to bring their senses of humor
into the classroom. Mary Louise Pratt points to parody as one of the literate arts of the contact zone that
knowledge occurs when assignments create spaces for students to act as academics.

oppressed groups can appropriate and adapt from the dominant culture (179). Of course, there are no guarantees
that the students or I will fully understand one anothers jocularities. The previously mentioned student example of
the international phone cards required some explanation for me to understand, just as I might have benefited from
an explanation of a quip about a medieval holiday during a recent departmental meeting. Believing that students
should participate in activities that are fundamentally different from those done by academics can undermine even
the best assignment. In addition to the myriad of personal contradictions that students face when they make the
transition to a new role within the academic community, the teachers pejorative beliefs about students relative

As a
third aspect, even a superficial parody changes the students role from that of a
passive consumer to a more active producer of critique unless the students are just
status and capabilities can subtly affect whether students engage meaningfully with the text or assignment.

reformatting the teachers views. This problem may be more likely to occur if students are constructing a parody of

A parody assignment that invites students to depict the

pitfalls of all positions directs students to expose the ideology present in each.
Ideology is very difficult to reveal. Like dialect, we often presume that it is the other who speaks
funny, whereas we speak correctly. It is important to examine how academics and everyday
people learn critique. To wit, reading and writing scholarship have made me cautious about the ideas that I
only one of the theory groups.

forward. As painful as it might seem, the blind review process employed by academic journals and the open forums
at conferences and on listservs help scholars anticipate critiques by others within the field. Sharing worries about
the misrepresentations that are inevitable in glosses, taxonomies, and parodies can be an opening gambit for
critique. However, it is never the assignment alone that accomplishes the goal, but the classroom context in which
the assignment becomes a dynamic activity. If knowledge is presented to students as immutable truth, it becomes
unlikely that students will do more than learn the teachers critiques as more knowledge to be consumed. One
concern might be that these parodies are not very potent critiques, but merely authorized transgressionsthat they
do not move radically away from given taxonomies or that they encourage overgeneralizations about which elite
academic club to join. At their worst, parody assignments might only be comic relief from the otherwise daily
drudgery of coursework. Obviously, the larger culture is rife with parodies of politicians that evoke laughter, but, as
some maintain, these parodies have little more than entertainment value for those who are unable to partake in
political agency by voting or speaking out against policies that limit their material conditions. Fredric Jameson might
caution that parodies function as simplistic stylistic devices that are devoid of a political claim in which a
schizophrenic subject gains no agency. Similarly, students could just invent stereotypes for contextless scholars
without any participation in the field. Critique ought to be the beginning and not the end of what academics do. As a
future possibility for critique, I am incubating an assignment in which students profile a person from their lives who
has developed an awareness of a dominant ideology limitation and has rejected a specific cultural metanarrative.
More times than not, an assignment may function in a way that the teacher did not intend. Regretfully, innovative
assignments are probably more likely to be misinterpreted by students; consequently, the burden falls on the
teacher to sponsor metacognitive reflection about the learning experience, which I address in a later section. As a

parody can question representations of knowledge . Although students may map

the parody
assignment problematizes the history of our field as textually mediated and
constructed. Hutcheon expresses my point this way: To parody is not to destroy the past: in
fact, to parody is both to enshrine the past and to question it (6). A problem when
fourth feature,

taxonomies without doubting the way that scholars and theory groups are represented,

representing a discipline or a university is that, through reification, the discourse loses its dynamic human quality.
For instance, I mentally resist whenever I am told that I must do something for the good of the university.
Administrators tend to privilege the needs of the reified institution over those of the faculty or the students.
Although questions lengthen the time spent in committee meetings, academics are very good at questioning

knowledge. From the outset, graduate students should be involved in interrogating canonical knowledge. Otherwise,
composition and rhetoric can be misconceived as an impenetrable, indisputable truth. Even the names for groups
and terminology should be challenged. Recently, on the Writing Program Administrators listserv, I read postings in
response to a query about differences among the terms liberatory, transformative, cultural studies, and
critical pedagogy. The commentary from several academics about these terms reminded me how, at different
moments in my career, I have read and applied ideas to my scholarship and teaching from the various groups
associated with them. Sometimes the name for a group or concept emerges late in the development of ideas.4 I
have been fortunate to participate in a few collaborative projects in which senior scholars took me seriously and
treated me with respect. I see no reason why graduate students should not be permitted to join scholarly
discussions. Listservs, wikis, blogs, and even Wikipedia can be used to share the controversies of the field as an
electronic version of Gerald Graffs disciplinary debates. If nothing else, questions about differences in terminology

Parody can provide a space for

questioning that which is represented as factual. From Hutcheons reference, I tracked down the
can present the impetus to investigate further and learn more.

unorthodox ideas of Raymond Federman. Federman proposes play-giarism in fiction, which exposes the fictionality

Writing parodies can be a playful

method for countering the reification of disciplinary knowledge. I want the parody
of reality or makes fun of what it does while doing it (par. 35).

assignment to help students gain a critical distance from the knowledge of the field for the purpose of questioning
it. Education philosopher Nicholas C. Burbules describes parody as [. . .] enacting a perspective while
simultaneously lampooning it, or provisionally embracing multiple perspectives without actually advocating any of
them. The parodist thrives on paradox, and sees in it an opportunity for humor and for critical commentary
(Postmodern par. 23). Building from Hayden Whites work on metahistory, Burbules advocates parody as one of
three narrative tropes (in addition to irony and tragedy) for dealing with the postmodern condition of doubta
foundational doubt, which sometimes threatens the presuppositions that we can hardly live without. I hope that, by
asking students to question all positions, I will not further alienate students from the field. I want to involve them in
the politics of representation, first through mapping and parody and then later through researching the context and
doing close reading of a scholarly text. I want students to examine the relationship among text, language, and
identity and to understand how culture becomes inscribed in all three.

Cap
No link and af solves the K- our satirical interrogation of
energy practices is the most efective means of fighting
capitalism and consumption
Pehlivan et al. 13

(Ekin 1 Pierre Berthon1, Jean-Paul Berthon2 and Ian Cross1, 6/11/13, 1 Bentley University,
Waltham, Massachusetts USA and 2 Southampton University, Southhampton, UK, Viral irony: using irony to spread
the questioning of questionable consumption, Wiley Online Library, Page 173)//RTF

In the public sphere, claims of truth and fact are essentially social constructs, wherein the
powerful can stipulate what is legitimate (cf. Bourdieu, 1991). This can be keenly
observed in the claims and counterclaims over the environment . In a recent review of the
GREEN IRONY

literature on attitudes to the environment in the USA (Daniels et al., 2011), it was found that depending on the
specific question, 3580% of consumers where concerned or very concerned about the environment. Thus,

powerful organizations, keen to gain environmental credibility in the eyes of the public, are spending
huge sums of money in advertising their green credentials (Naish, 2008). Countering many
of these claims is the environmental movement, which focuses on promoting awareness of, and generating
solutions to, the negative impact that humans are having on the planet (Guha, 1999). It argues that many of the
green claims made by firms are half-truths or entirely bogus and label much of the advertising by firms as

Two strategies are typically employed when countering the

environmentally responsible claims of firms: direct and indirect . The directmethod is
simply a public negation of the initial claim combined with a counter claim. The indirect method is to
employ a rhetorical device such as irony to problematize or subvert the initial
message. This latter strategy has two potential advantages. First, it eschews the
claim, counter-claim problem of which side to believe, but rather subverts the
original message so that the viewers question the claim themselves. Second, it, as
we shall argue, helps the counter message spread. Consider the much-advertised
claim of clean coal by the coal industry. The industry argues that technology has
greenwashing (e.g. Naish, 2008).

rendered coal, the worlds number one source of CO2 emissions (e.g. Gore, 2006), as a
clean energy. However, environmental groups on the web (e.g. http://www.coal-is-dirty.org/, http://
climaterealityproject.org/, and http://beyondcoal. org/) vehemently dispute this claim. As well as
directly refuting the claims of the coal industry, some of these groups employ irony
in their messaging to undermine the industrys assertions. Consumer-generated
content suggests that irony is popular among consumers . For example, the (s)ales of the
Kitsch Three wolf moon t-shirt shot up 2300% after a spate of ironic reviews went viral (Emery, 2009). Customers
left a string of ironic reviews for the environmentally friendly t-shirt (currently a staggering 2371
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountain- Three-Short-Sleeve/dp/B002HJ377A), making it one of the most popular
products on Amazon. Clearly, consumers demanded, created, and reveled in the ironic humor in promoting the
product (cf. Stern, 1990), and the phenomenon suggests that

irony has the ability to help a message

go viral.

In the fight against the claims of clean coal, the Coen brothers created an ironic ad called clean coal-air
freshener. The ad is a parody of a regular air freshener commercial. The spokesperson introduces an all-American
family to clean coal scented air freshener. The script reads Is regular clean, clean enough, for your family? Not
when you can have Clean coal clean! Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word clean, to make it
sound like the cleanest clean there is. Clean coal is supported by the coal industry, the most trusted name in coal!
and the 30 s ad ends with a low pitch buzzing sound with the words projected on a black screen In reality there is
no such thing as clean coal (http://action. thisisreality.org/page/s/coenbrothers). The message of the ad on the
surface violates conventional expectations, yet

the use of irony emphasizes the absurdity of the

concept of clean coal; irony is used to let consumers question questionable consumption of the worlds number
one source of CO2.

Perm do both- the inclusion of irony spreads the alt net better
Pehlivan et al. 13

(Ekin 1 Pierre Berthon1, Jean-Paul Berthon2 and Ian Cross1, 6/11/13, 1 Bentley University,
Waltham, Massachusetts USA and 2 Southampton University, Southhampton, UK, Viral irony: using irony to spread
the questioning of questionable consumption, Wiley Online Library, Pages 176-177)//RTF

GREEN VIRUSES: HOW IRONY CAN HELP MESSAGES SPREAD Now that we have specified how irony works and the

we can turn our attention to the

relationship between irony and the probability that a consumer will spread the
message via text, e-mail, social network, or word of mouth. Specifically, we ask two questions. First,
various types that can occur in marketing communications,

what is it about the mechanism of irony that helps a message to spread? Second, why is irony especially

irony can
help a message go viral because it differentiates, aids memorability, and enhances
the aesthetics of a message. Differentiation: With the rise of electronic
communication and the increasing number of message types and media, there is an
ever-increasing dissonance of voices in the marketplace (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Consumers
predominant in viral videos on environmental issues? In answer to the first question, we suggest that

are deluged with communications every minute of their lives, and thus marketers are increasingly employing
unconventional mechanisms to attract attention. Irony is one of these tools. As Brown (2003: 81) observes, Ironic

advertising takes marketing-savvy consumers as a given and seeks to ironize the

norms, clichs, and customercentric sanctimoniousness of the marketing industry.
As we have seen, irony employs incongruity between levels or elements of a message,
and research shows that incongruity attracts and arrests attention to a marketing
message (e.g. McQuarrie and Mick 1996). Memorability: Along with delivering incongruity, irony is often used to
evoke humor. Irony elicits both elements, so can enhance a messages memorability
compared with a direct advertisement (e.g. Stern, 1990, Lee and Schumann, 2004). Moreover,
because additional cognitive effort needs to be expended when interpreting an
indirect message (over and above the cognitive load needed to interpret the direct message), the
presence of irony is likely to increase the number of associative paths stored in the
memory (cf. Mitchell, 1983).

Visibility
1. This is our last stand- all other means of criticism of modern
debate practices have been coopted and just turned into
meaningless debate arguments- only a risk the af can solve
because invisibility empirically fails
2. There is definitively no link- the af cant be coopted- 1AC
Phiddian says that parody is a form of deconstruction and that
deconstruction solves by nesting within a structure and
tearing it down from the inside- the af is literally the same as
the K- our movement is invisible- you didnt know what we
were doing until the top of the 2AC- means perm do both
solves
3. (pull the second pehlivan card from cap, it says irony/viral
spread is best)
Micropolitical performative challenges in debate disrupt
hegemonic knowledge production by making it visible- key to
participation in the movement
Kulynych 97 (Jessica, 1997, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University, Performing
Politics: Foucault, Habermas, and Postmodern Participation, Polity (30.2), p, 37)//RTF

Participation as resistance compels us to expand the category of political

participation. Whereas traditional studies of participation delimit political
participation from other "social" activities, once participation is defined as
resistance this distinction is no longer tenable. Bonnie Honig suggests that performative
action is an event, an agonistic disruption of the ordinary sequence of things, a site
of resistance of the irresistible, a challenge to the normalizing rules that seek to
constitute, govern, and control various behaviors. And, [thus,] we might be in a position
to identify sites of political action in a much broader array of constations, ranging
from the self-evident truths of God, nature, technology and capital to those of identity, of
gender, race and ethnicity. We might then be in a position to act -in the private realm." A
performative concept of participation as resistance explodes the distinction between
public and private, between the political and the apolitical. As Foucault explains, what was
formerly considered apolitical, or social rather than political, is revealed as the foundation of
technologies of state control. Contests over identity and everyday social life are not merely
additions to the realm of the political, but actually create the very character of those things
traditionally considered political. The state itself is "superstructural in relation to a whole series of
power networks that invest the body, sexuality, the family, kinship, knowledge, technology and so forth."72 Thus
it is contestations at the micro-level, over the intricacies of everyday life, that provide the raw
material for global domination, and the key to disrupting global strategies of
domination. Therefore, the location of political participation extends way beyond the
formal apparatus of government, or the formal organization of the workplace, to the
intimacy of daily actions and iterations. A performative understanding of political
participation demands recognition of a broader array of actors and actions as well .
Performative participation is manifest in any activity that resists the technological and

bureaucratic construction of privatized client-citizens, or reveals the contingency of

contemporary identities. Political action, understood in this sense, does not have to be intentional, rational,
and planned; it may be accidental, impulsive, and spontaneous. It is the disruptive potential, the surprising effect,

studies of
participation must concern themselves not just with those activities we intentionally
take part in and easily recognize as political participation, but also with those
accidental, unplanned, and often unrecognized instances of political participation . If
rather than the intent of an action that determines its status as participation. Consequently,

resistance is a matter of bringing back into view things that have become self-evident, then we must be prepared to
recognize that consciousness of the contingency of norms and identities is an achievement that happens through

Performative participation is manifest in any action, conscious

or unconscious, spontaneous or organized, that resists the normalizing, regularizing,
and subjectifying confines of contemporary disciplinary regimes . Such a concept of
political participation allows us to see action where it was previously invisible . So
action and not prior to action.

where Gaventa, in his famous study of Appalachian miners, sees quiescence in "anger [that is] poignantly
expressed about the loss of homeplace, the contamination of streams, the drain of wealth, or the destruction from
the strip mining all around ... [but is only] individually expressed and shows little apparent translation into
organized protest or collective action,"" a concept of performative resistance sees tactics and strategies that resist
not only the global strategies of economic domination, but also the construction of apathetic, quiescent citizens.

When power is such that it can create quiescence, then the definition of political
participation must include those forms of political action that disrupt and counter
quiescence. A concept of political participation that recognizes participation in sporadically expressed
grievances, and an "adherence to traditional values" by citizens faced with the "penetration of dominant social
values," is capable of seeing not only how power precludes action but also how power relationships are "not
altogether successful in shaping universal acquiescence." "

Permutation: occupy the space in between the visible and

invisible- solves the K best
De Vries 2013 (Leonie Ansems, 10/23/13, Visiting Fellow @ RCIR, The Politics of (In)visibility:
Governance-Resistance of Refugees, http://kclrcir.org/2013/10/23/the-politics-of-invisibility-governance-%C2%AD
%E2%80%90resistance-of-refugees/)//RTF
Migrants and refugees are in the spotlight across the globe. To give only a snapshot of recent news coverage:
Millions of people are fleeing Syria; two overcrowded boats carrying refugees capsized near Lampedusa earlier this
month; the Australian government sends asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea under a new offshore resettlement
policy; the UK government is under fire for its controversial Go Home campaign, urging illegal migrants to go
home or face arrest. These events and policies bring to light the importance and urgency of responding to both the
plight of refugees and the securitisation of migration in very practical ways. It also prompts the need to
conceptualise these issues in ways other than through discourses of threat, (in)security and/or victimisation. I would
like to throw a different light on the issue of refugees and migration by focusing on the affirmative political practices

What I call the politics of (in)visibility, plays out at the intersection

of theory and practice as well as at the juncture of governance and resistance. In
of refugees in Malaysia.

Malaysia, refugees are legally non-existent. The apparent simplicity of this legal invisibility hides a complex field of
practices. The Malaysian state is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol Relating to
the Status of Refugees. Only two categories of migrants exist in Malaysian law: legal and illegal. The absence of the
category of the refugee means that all undocumented migrants are considered illegal migrants and subject to the
Immigration Act, which allows for the detention, deportation and (coroporal) punishment of illegal migrants. The
securitisation of migration by the Malaysia authorities in combination with the absence of legal rights leaves
undocumented migrants in a very vulnerable position. Yet, what struck me whilst working with refugees from
Myanmar in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur was the affirmative character of their practices more than the
hopelessness of their situation. For instance, refugees have set up community associations, advocacy organisations,
churches and schools and many have found work. This more affirmative perspective emerges with the observation
that the field of governmental practices stretches beyond state authorities as well as beyond official procedures and
legislation. Of significance in this respect is the role of the UNHCR as both facilitator of resistance and governmental
body of regulation and management. The Malaysian state does not have an asylum system in place to register and
administer refugees. The UNHCR has stepped in to offer assistance and support to refugees, including registration,
status determination, documentation and resettlement. Relations among government, UNHCR and refugees are

ambiguous and informal, as symbolised by the UNHCR identity card. Upon registration with the UNHCR, migrants
receive a UNHCR identity card, granting them a kind of unofficial official status. Unofficial insofar as the identity
card does not grant a refugee an official status under Malaysian law; and unofficial insofar as the card is no
guarantee against arrest and detention although, informally, the card should give a refugee this protection. In
practice, the possession of an identity card appears to help reduce violence against refugees at least to a degree. It
is official insofar as undocumented migrants gain the status of refugee in the eyes of the UNHCR as well as the
international community. That is to say, the UNHCR does not merely make visible the existence of refugees in
Malaysia, it produces the category of the refugee by dividing the field of illegal migrants into refugees and
economic migrants. A division denied by the government. Identification as a refugee thus involves the simultaneity
of resistance against the denial of legal status by the government and governmentalisation by the UNHCR.

The example of identity cards indicates that the legal and the illegal, as well as the
visible and the invisible, cannot be captured in binary terms. A large domain exists
in which the legal, the illegal, the formal and the informal are at play in a more
complex manner. It is in this domain that refugees produce an affirmative politics of
resistance. If their official illegality and invisibility leaves refugees in a vulnerable
position, their occupation of the space in- between between the visible and the
invisible also allows them to claim an identity other than that of either passive
victim or dangerous other. The community associations and schools set up by various refugee
communities constitute a clear example of practices that challenge the denial of affirmative subjectivity. Attention
to the detail of micro-practices in the case of refugees in Malaysia thus challenges prevailing discourses that frame
migrants and refugees either in terms of dangerous other or passive victim. It also challenges the assumption that
governance and resistance can be captured in a binary terms. Rather, governance and resistance appear as a
complexity of co-constitutive practices. It is on the basis of their official illegality and invisibility, yet in the in-
between of (il)legality, (in)visibility and (in)formality, that refugees create an informal yet active politics both
enabled and compromised by practices of governance.

Visibility is critical to efective resistance

Gordon 2002

(Neve, 2002, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University, On Visibility

and Power: An Arendtian Corrective of Foucault. Human Studies 25: 125145)//RTF
Plurality and natality are the conditions of possibility of Arendtian power. We read that power, as that which
springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse is dependent on the
human condition of plurality (Arendt, 1958, p. 200). Seyla Benhabib traces Arendts notion of plurality to
Heideggers being-with-others, whereby the world is never just the world around one, it is always also the world
we share with others (as quoted in Benhabib, 1996, p. 53). Whereas for Heidegger, being-with-others has
negative connotations of fallenness into the chatter of everyday life, for Arendt human plurality, the basic
condition of both action and speech, has the twofold character of equality and distinction. Arendt adds, we are
all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives or

Plurality accordingly describes two interrelated conditions.

First, it signifies the human condition of being-with-others-in-the-world. Second, it
underscores the duality of human existence whereby all individuals, as humans, are
the same, and yet simultaneously each one is a unique being. Plurality, one should
note, is an ontological category that constitutes human existence in its most
primordial sense. Put differently, insofar as one is human, plurality is an integral
part of ones existence. Moreover, plurality is essential to visibility. In Arendts
view, the world gains meaning as a result of the human condition of plurality. As
will live (1958, pp. 107, 108).

Bhikhu Parekh puts it, ones experience of the world is dependent upon the recognition and confirmation of
others (Parekh, 1981, p. 87). Even ones own identity, not only in the sense of what one is, but also who one is, is
contingent upon how others interpret ones words and deeds. Arendt goes so far as to suggest that even the
great forces of intimate life the passions of the heart, the thought of the mind, the delights of the senses lead
an uncertain, shadowy kind of existence unless and until they are transformed, deprivatized and deindividualized,
as it were, into a shape to fit them for public appearance (1958, p. 50). A sense of reality, even the most intimate
and private reality, is, according to Arendt, intersubjectively derived, while intersubjectivity is dependent on the
twofold character of plurality. Arendts discussion of plurality and her claim that meaning is dependent on
intersubjective experience have far reaching implications for Foucaults notion of nonsubjective power. While
Foucault discloses forms of control that Arendt did not notice, both thinkers would agree that the diverse
attributes that are ascribed, for example, to sex which are, in effect, forms of positive and negative control

become meaningful and remain so only insofar as they are corroborated in public, insofar as they are visible.

Devoid of visibility, power becomes powerless. Thus, visibility is, as mentioned

before, both an effect of power and its condition of possibility. Arendts writings
demonstrate that visibility is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is the
visibility of the social that make it into a form of control (Gordon, 2001). Writing
about Arendt, Melissa Orlie echoing Butler underscores this point, describing
how the on-going reiteration of social norms engenders a so-called rule of
necessity, as well as the violations and exclusions it abets (1995, p. 340). On the
other hand, any form of resistance is also dependent on visibility, on the ability of
people to see and hear defiant acts. Without visibility, all confrontations are
meaningless. Foucault, I believe, would have agreed that visibility is resistances
condition of possibility, yet, to the best of my knowledge, he never says so
explicitly.

Other Args
Cede the Political
Satire doesnt cede the political its actually key to motivate
action
Thai, 14 editor for The Crimson (Anthony, Political Satire: Beyond the Humor,
The Crimson, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/2/6/harvard-politicalsatire/)//IS
Despite these advantages, some have argued that political satire encourages
cynicism, trivializes politics, and promotes a narrow point of view (stemming from
the predominantly liberal leanings of most political satirists and comedians). It is
true that, when taken in isolation, political satire poses many drawbacks, and that
the constant critique of political figures and media outlets can lead to skepticism.
However, viewers of satire are more likely to watch and read traditional news
sources as well, according to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review. In fact,
satirists often refer to other news sources to provide background for their critiques,
as Stewart has done numerous times with CNN and Fox News, serving the dual
purpose of communicating news and criticizing the current methods of political
media. The same article also references research that suggests increased
viewership of political humor does not distance the audience from politics but
instead increases knowledge of current events, leads to further informationseeking on related topics, and increases viewer interest in and attention paid to
politics and news. This more informed and interested audience naturally has more
opportunities to share educated opinions with others and provoke discussion.
Arguments that satire actually increases narrow-mindedness because it panders to
liberals also have their flaws. While there are few Republican and conservative
viewers, data show that less than half of the viewers of The Daily Show and The
Colbert Report are liberals; in fact, 38 percent of viewers of The Colbert Report,
as well as 41 percent of those watching The Daily Show, consider themselves
independents. These shows have roughly the same percentage of Democrat viewers
as the New York Times and USA Today and a lower percentage than CNN, all of
which claim to be non-partisan news sources. Moreover, humorists connect with
their audience more effectively than news anchors do. While politics in news is often
portrayed as a field separate from daily life, Stewart and Colbert easily relate their
coverage to the average viewer. In contrast to Sunday talk shows such as NBCs
Meet the Press and ABCs This Week, which host roundtables of pundits
discussing the political issues of the day in non-personal terms, satirists need to be
personal for their comedy to be understood and entertaining. Finally, instead of
allowing experts to express their opinions as fact as some journalists do, humorists
often challenge the views of experts to the audiences benefit. For example, in
October 2013, Stewart hosted Kathleen Sebelius, the US Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and criticized Obamacare for delaying compliance with the bill for
big businesses but not individuals. He critiqued the fact that these businesses can
lobby for their interests while individuals cannot. Although some coverage of this
issue made news sources, Stewart presented it at length with an authentic source
and in a comedic and memorable fashion. He caught viewers attention and

demonstrated that experts are not always correct. Taken together with traditional
news sources, political humor at least molds a more informed public and at best
increases political involvement and excitement. The humor provides the tools;
viewers must decide whether to use them.

Satire is key to political action empirics

Freedman, 10 UCLA Professor of Political Science, specializing in American and
British politics, and as Dean of UCLA Extension. Since his retirement he has taught a
seminar on political satire in UCLAs undergraduate Honors Collegium. His political
satire presentations for university and community audiences extend an avocation
begun in a common setting for political satire in Britain the university musical
review. Lens publications include: The Offensive Art: Political Satire and its
Censorship Around the World From Beerbohm to Borat (2009); Power and Policy in
America, 7th edition (2000)(Why Political Satire Matters,
http://www.strictlysatire.com/mysites/WhySatireMatters.aspx)//IS
And yet, if satire alone is unlikely to change the course of history, it often
accompanies and reinforces political action. And though its impact can never be
measured precisely, it seems likely that, together with other forces of dissent,
political satire can make a diference. The cartoons and lascivious jokes leveled
at the royal family helped to create the atmosphere of derision and fury that
culminated in the French Revolution. The satirists rage against the Vietnam war
played its part in the shift of public sentiment that at last forced its end. Colbert and
Stewart make politics amusing and interesting to youthful audiences who otherwise
tend to be politically uninvolved. Moreover, if some authoritarian regimes have
contemptuously tolerated a limited amount of satire, most have not. And here we
come to the most important argument for why political satire matters its role as a
bulwark against political oppression. Political satire, after all, is by definition
aggressive, hostile, offensive. Political leaders generally dont like being offended,
and especially they dont enjoy being made to look ridiculous.

Satire Good
Satire is a key form of public pedagogy its a prerequisite to
meaningful debate
McClennen, 12 Ph.D., Duke University M.A., Duke University A.B., Harvard
University, cum laude Dr. McClennen directs Penn State's Center for Global Studies
as well as its Latin American Studies program and has ties to the departments of
Comparative Literature, Spanish, and Women's Studies. She has published seven
books and has three in process. Her latest single-authored volume is Colbert's
America: Satire and Democracy (2012), which studies the role of Stephen Colbert in
shaping political discourse after 9/11. (Sophia. A, America According to Colbert:
Satire as Public Pedagogy post 9/11, July 3rd,

http://societyforcriticalexchange.org/conferences/MLA%202011/Public
%20Intellectuals/America%20According%20to%20Colbert.htm)//IS
By inquiring into the ways that Colbert has functioned as a public intellectual, this
paper suggests that satire is a comedic and pedagogic form uniquely suited to
provoke critical reflection. Its ability to underscore the absurdity, ignorance, and
prejudice of commonly accepted behaviors by means of comedic critical reflection
offers an especially potent form of public critique, one that was much needed in the
post 9/11 environment. This paper argues that, in contrast to the antiintellectualism, the sensationalism, and the punditry that tend to govern most mass
media today, Colberts program offers his audience the opportunity to understand
the context through which most news is reported and to be critical of it. In so doing
Colberts show further offers viewers an opportunity to reflect on the limited and
narrow ways that political issues tend to be framed in public debate. Colberts
satire, then, is a form of what Henry Giroux defines as public pedagogy since it
demonstrates the use of media as a political and educational force. Recognizing
that the political opinions of most US citizens are shaped by an uncritical
acceptance of the issues as provided by the mainstream media, Colbert uses the
same venue to critique that process. By impersonating a right-wing pundit, Colbert
differs in significant ways from other critical comedians since his form of humor
embodies that which it critiques. This paper suggests that this form of parody has
both the potential to be more incisive in its critique and also more dangerous, since
its dependence on a cult of personality could merely mirror the same passive
viewing practices common to programs like The OReilly Factor. This paper also
contributes to the ongoing conversation about how satire and humor post 9/11 have
been able to effectively encourage critical perspectives on major social issues,
thereby providing an important source of public pedagogy. Focusing on one of the
leading figures of satire TV, my paper claims that Colberts program incorporates
a series of features that foster critical thinking and that encourage audiences to
resist the status quo. By analyzing the context within which the program emerged
and the specific features of the program, this book offers readers insight into the
powerful ways that Colberts comedy challenges the cult of ignorance that has
threatened meaningful public debate and social dialogue since 9/11.

Satire Works
If people dont understand the irony at first, itll make an even
bigger impression on them once they get it we can always
explain the joke later
Day, 8 Ph.D. and Assistant Professor of English and Cultural Studies at Bryant University; (Amber,
Are They For Real? Activism and Ironic Identities, 2008,
http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/EJCPUBLIC/018/2/01846.html)//IS

Hutcheon warns of the potential danger inherent in the use of irony in that it can
easily backfire. She explains, those whom you oppose might attribute no irony and
simply take you at your word; or they might make irony happen and thus accuse
you of being self-negating, if not self-contradicting. Those with whom you agree

(and who know your position) might also attribute no irony and mistake you for
advocating what you are in fact criticizing (16). The Yes Men, it seems, found
themselves precisely falling prey to these traps, but have hit upon a method of
using the pitfalls to their advantage, allowing audiences to read them seriously and
then exposing them for being complicit with the offensive ideas put forward. In
hindsight, the irony is much more obvious, meaning either that those present at the
live event appear morally unscrupulous or that the media is spurred to engage in
reflection about why they were taken in. Perhaps more importantly, the revealed
hoaxes speak to a growing number of fans who take delight in witnessing
organizations and corporations they are already critical of be publicly pranked,
again providing affirmation for existing discursive communities.

Framework
We arent actually policymakers- they arent real world and
destroy education by creating role confusiontheres no
benefit to policy if we cant put it into efect
Kappeler, 95

(Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)

`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire
society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says,
upholding the notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions,
and where the conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the
contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse
situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make
them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and

our habit of focusing on

the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in
relation to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own
responsibility - leading to the well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness
and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called political disillusionment. Single citizens even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in their obvious nonresponsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina or
actions without lessening theirs by any collective `assumption' of responsibility. Yet

Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not
responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that
therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the

it seems to absolve us from

having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to
responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular,

recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that
we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between
bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the
phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For
we tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong

Which is why many of those not

yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy
politics, in the style of `What would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the
president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to regard their mega
spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses
tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends
to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as
`virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I
situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made.

obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding
expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want
to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the
troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-comprehension: our willed
refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to
drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact
that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for

We share in the responsibility

for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape `our
feelings, our relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of
war and violence.
ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the `others'.

Our Violent representations matter, and are the root cause of

war and violence.
Kappeler 95
(Susanne, 1995, lecturer in English at the University of East Anglia and an Associate Professor at the
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Akhawayn University,[2] and now works as a freelance writer
and teacher in England and Germany. Kappeler also taught 'The literary representation of women' in the
Faculty of English at Cambridge while a research fellow at Jesus College, Cambridge[3] and was a parttime tutor for the Open University Course, A History of Violence, pg 8-9)
Violence what we usually recognize as such It is no misbehaviour of a minority
amid good behaviour by the majority, nor the deeds of inhuman monsters amid humane
humans, in a society in which there is no equality, in which people divide others
according to race, class, sex and many other factors in order to rule, exploit,
use, objectify, enslave, sell, torture and kill them, in which millions of animals
are tortured, genetically manipulated, enslaved and slaughtered daily for
'harmless' consumption by humans. It is no error of judgement, no moral lapse and
no transgression against the customs of a culture which is thoroughly steeped in the
values of profit and desire, of self-realization, expansion and progress. Violence as we
usually perceive it is 'simply' a specific and to us still visible form of violence, the
consistent and logical application of the principles of our culture and everyday life. War
does not suddenly break out in a peaceful society; sexual violence is not the
disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations. Racist attacks do not shoot
like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual exploitation of children is
no solitary problem in a world otherwise just to children. The violence of our
most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal will to
violence, constitute the conceptual preparation, the ideological armament and
the intellectual mobilization which make the 'outbreak' of war, of sexual
violence, of racist attacks, of murder and destruction possible at all.`We are the
war', writes Slavenka Drakulic at the end of her existential analysis of the question, 'what
is war?': I do not know what war is, I want to tell [my friend], but I see it everywhere. It is
in the blood-soaked street in Sarajevo, after 20 people have been killed while they
queued for bread. But it is also in your non-comprehension, in my unconscious cruelty
towards you, in the fact that you have a yellow form [for refugees] and I don't, in the way
in which it grows inside ourselves and changes our feelings, relationships, values in
short: us. We are the war ... And I am afraid that we cannot hold anyone else responsible.
We make this war possible, we permit it to happens 'We are the war' and we also
'are' the sexual violence, the racist violence, the exploitation and the will to
violence in all its manifestations in a society in so-called 'peacetime', for we
make them possible and we permit them to happen.

Their world of debate is bad- it causes disinterested

argumentation and reinforces oppression.
Spanos 04

(William Spanos, 2004, Distinguished Professor of English and comparative literature at

Binghamton University and kind of an asshole, Spanos on debate, http://the3nr.com/2010/01/17/spanos-ondebate/)//RTF
Dear Joe MIller, Yes, the statement about the American debate circuit you refer to was made by me, though some
years ago. I strongly believed then and still do, even though a certain uneasiness about objectivity has crept into

debate in both the high schools and colleges in this

country is assumed to take place nowhere, even though the issues that are debated
are profoundly historical, which means that positions are always represented from
the philosophy of debate that

the perspective of power, and a matter of life and death . I find it grotesque that in the
debate world, it doesnt matter which position you take on an issue say, the
United States unilateral wars of preemption as long as you score points. The
world we live in is a world entirely dominated by an exceptionalist America which has perennially
claimed that it has been chosen by God or History to fulfill his/its errand in the wilderness. That
claim is powerful because American economic and military power lies behind it. And
any alternative position in such a world is virtually powerless. Given this inexorable
historical reality, to assume, as the protocols of debate do, that all positions are
equal is to efface the imbalances of power that are the fundamental condition of
history and to annul the Moral authority inhering in the position of the oppressed .
This is why I have said that the appropriation of my interested work on education and empire to this transcendental
debate world constitute a travesty of my intentions. My scholarship is not disinterested. It is militant and intended
to ameliorate as much as possible the pain and suffering of those who have been oppressed by the democratic
institutions that have power precisely by way of showing that their language if truth, far from being
disinterested or objective as it is always claimed, is informed by the will to power over all manner of others.

I told my interlocutor that he and those in the debate world who felt like
him should call into question the traditional objective debate protocols and the
instrumentalist language they privilege in favor of a concept of debate and of
language in which life and death mattered . I am very much aware that the arrogant neocons who
now saturate the government of the Bush administration judges, pentagon planners, state department
officials, etc. learned their disinterested argumentative skills in the high school and
college debate societies and that, accordingly, they have become masters at
disarming the just causes of the oppressed. This kind leadership will reproduce itself (along with the
This is also why

invisible oppression it perpetrates) as long as the training ground and the debate protocols from which it emerges
remains in tact.

A revolution in the debate world must occur. It must force that

unworldly world down into the historical arena where positions make a difference. To
invoke the late Edward Said, only such a revolution will be capable of deterring democracy (in Noam Chomskys
ironic phrase), of instigating the secular critical consciousness that is, in my mind, the sine qua non for avoiding the
immanent global disaster towards which the blind arrogance of Bush Administration and his neocon policy makers is
leading.

Their complaint is with the form rather than the content of the
1ACtranslating this complaint into a rule plays into sovereign
hands which turns decisionmaking and guts education
Steele 10Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas (Brent, Defacing Power: The
Aesthetics of Insecurity in Global Politics pg 109-111)
The rules of language and speaking can themselves serve to conceal truth in world
politics. I begin here with the work of Nicholas Onuf (1989), which has inspired constructivists to engage how

Rules help construct patterns and

structures of language exchanges, and without these rules, language becomes
meaningless (Gould 2003: 61). From the work of Onuf, we recognize that rules do more than set
appropriate boundaries for language, as the paradigm of political society is aptly named because it
language is a rule-governed activity (Wilmer 2003: 221).

links irrevocably the sine qua non of society the availability, no, the unavoidability of rules and of politics the

Rules lead to
rule what Onuf (1989) titles the rule-rules coupling. Thus, linguistic rules demarcate relations
of power and serve to perpetuate the asymmetry of social relations. The structure of
language games is valued because it provides order and continuity . But because
those rules are obeyed so frequently and effortlessly, they are hard to recognize as
forms of authority. Where does the need for such continuity arise ? As mentioned in
previous chapters, Giddensian sociology suggests that the drive for ontological security, for the
persistence of asymmetric social relations, known otherwise as the condition of rule. (1989: 22)

securing of self-identity through time, can only be satisfied by the screening out of
chaotic everyday events through routines, which are a central element of the autonomy of the
developing individual (Giddens 1991: 40). Without routines, individuals face chaos, and what Giddens calls the
protective cocoon of basic trust evaporates (ibid.). Yet, as I have discussed in my other work (2005, 2008a) and as

rigid routines can constrain agents in their ability to

learn new information. This is what the rhythmic strata of aesthetic power satisfies. In the context
it creates for parrhesia, these routines, connected to an agents sense of Self, shield that agent
from the truth.4 The shallowness of our routinized daily existence , Weber once stated,
consists indeed in the fact that the persons who are caught up in it do not become
aware, and above all do not wish to become aware, of this partly psychologically,
part pragmatically conditioned motley of irreconcilably antagonistic values (1974: 18).
The need for such rhythmic continuity spans all social organizations, including
scholarly communities (thus we refer to such communities as disciplines). The function of these
rules creates a similar problematic faced by the parrhesiastes who is attempting to
shock these structured rules and habits of the targeted agent. Because the parrhesiastes may find
Jennifer Mitzen notes (2006: 364),

the linguistic rules or at least styles or language used by the targeted power to be part of the problem (the notion

must perform a balancing act between two

goals. First, the parrhesiastes must challenge the conventions that serve to simplify and
even conceal the truth the parrhesiastes is speaking. Second, the parrhesiastes
must observe some of these speaking rules, part of which may themselves be
responsible for or derivate toward the style of the Self that needs to be challenged
by the parrhesiastes. Favoring the first, the parrhesiastes is prone to being ignored
as irrational, as someone on the fringe or even unintelligible or, in the words of Harry Gould
already noted, meaningless. Favoring the second moves the parrhesiastes away from the
truth attempting to be told or at least obscures the truth with the language of
nicety. As developed by Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, parrhesia existed within this spectrum:
at times, it bordered on harsh frankness that was not mixed with praise; at
other times, the frankness was more subdued (Glad 1996: 41). 5 As the examples of Cynic and
that one must be tactful, for instance), she or he

academic-intellectual parrhesia provided later in this chapter illustrate, different manifestations of truth-telling as a
form of counterpower occupy different spaces along this spectrum balancing between abiding by these
conventions of decorum and style; the need to provide forceful, decloaked truth; or, in the case of Cynic parrhesia,

The parrhesiastes will most likely face

charges of the first order (ignoring convention) regardless of the manner in which
parrhesia is delivered. If, indeed, the truth hurts and if the target of such truth cannot deny the
facts being delivered, the most convenient option for the victim is to blame the way in
which the parrhesiastes said something, knowing full well that it was the substance of what that
flauntingly contradicting the conventions altogether.

person said that was, for the victim, inappropriate or, more to the point, inconvenient.

Resolved is to reduce by mental analysis

Random House 11 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolve)
Resolved is to reduce by mental analysis,

Should indicates desirability

OED 11 (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should?region=us)
Should indicates desirability,

USFG = the people

Howard, 5 (Adam, Jeffersonian Democracy: Of the People, By the People, For the
People,
http://www.byzantinecommunications.com/adamhoward/homework/highschool/jeffer
sonian.html, 5/27)
the government is the people, and people is the government.
if a particular government ceases to work for the good of the people, the
people may and ought to change that government or replace it. Governments are established
to protect the people's rights using the power they get from the people .
Ideally, then, under Jeffersonian Democracy,
Therefore,

Explore means to inquire or discuss a subject or issue in detail

Oxford Dictionary no date

(Oxford dictionary, no date, explore,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/explore)//RTF

explore

Syllabification: explore Pronunciation: /iksplr / VERB [WITH OBJECT] 1Travel in or through (an
unfamiliar country or area) in order to learn about or familiarize oneself with it: the best way to explore Icelands
northwest FIGURATIVE the project encourages children to explore the world of photography MORE EXAMPLE
SENTENCES SYNONYMS 1.1 [NO OBJECT] (explore for) Search for resources such as mineral deposits: the company
explored for oil MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES 1.2Inquire

into or discuss (a subject or issue) in

detail: he sets out to explore fundamental questions MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES 1.3Examine or evaluate (an
option or possibility): you continue to explore new ways to generate income MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS 1.4Examine by touch: her fingers explored his hair MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES 1.5 Medicine Surgically
examine (a wound or body cavity) in detail. MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES

Exploration is consideration or thinking

Vocabulary.com, no date (Vocabulary.com,
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/exploration)//IS
exploration 1 n to travel for the purpose of discovery Synonyms: geographic
expedition Type of: expedition a journey organized for a particular purpose n a
careful systematic search Types: probe an exploratory action or expedition Type of:
hunt, hunting, search the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something or
someone n a systematic consideration he called for a careful exploration of the
consequences Type of: consideration the process of giving careful thought to
something

Neg

Cede the Political

Satire cedes the political
Coe, 10 satirical author of novels including What a Carve Up! and The Terrible
Privacy of Maxwell Sim (Jonathan, Has political satire gone too far: I am less
convinced that satire is good for democracy, Financial Times: The Arts, 10/11/10,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5784ac84-bc50-11df-8c0200144feab49a.html#axzz37BmCs8Yz)//IS
However, far from tearing down the established order, most satire (except in a few
very great, very extreme cases Swifts A Modest Proposal being the obvious
example), does the exact opposite. It creates a welcoming space in which likeminded people can gather together and share in comfortable hilarity. The anger, the
feelings of injustice they might have been suffering beforehand are gathered
together, compressed and transformed into bursts of laughter, and after discharging
them they feel content and satisfied. An impulse that might have translated into
action is, therefore, rendered neutral and harmless. I remember a recent edition of
Radio 4s News Quiz where the comedian Jeremy Hardy brought this up: after
cracking a series of (brilliant) jokes about failed bankers collecting enormous
bonuses, he suddenly said, Why are we laughing about this? We should be taking
to the streets. He was right. So its no wonder that the rich and the powerful have
no objection to being mocked. They understand that satire can be a useful safety
valve, and a powerful weapon for preserving the status quo.

Satire cedes the political laughter stops incentives to take

action
Ziv, 1988 written extensively on the subject of humor, his titles including Humor
in Education: A Psychological Approach, The Psychology of Humor, and Personality
and Sense of Humor, from which the following has been excerpted. Ziv chairs the
department of education sciences at Tel Aviv University and has also chaired
international conferences on humor. His ten books have been translated into a halfdozen languages. (Avner. "Humor as a Social Corrective." Writing and Reading
Across the Curriculum 3rd ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen, eds.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988. 356-60.)//IS
In every oppressive regime there is this kind of underground humor, and it fulfills an
important function: Laughter shared by the (page 360 begins here) oppressed at the
expense of the oppressor reduces fear and helps people to go on living under the
regime with more ease. Totalitarian regimes possibly do themselves a disservice in
preventing manifestations of humor against themselves, for laughter may be a
safety valve for the release of tension and frustration. Similarly, a government that
lets its subjects laugh at it evinces its strength, inasmuch as it is not afraid of
mockery. Feelings of hostility and frustration may well be increased among the
oppressed by the restraint enforced on humorous expression. When such feelings
build up and must be held in, a kind of "pressure cooker" is created, which can
explode in violent ways. It is to be supposed that in democratic societies, in which

freedom of expression is given to political humor, satire indirectly serves the

interests of the government. The possibility of ventilating feelings against the state
by means of laughter offers release; the hostility might otherwise be demonstrated
in far more violent forms, even outright rebellion. The first piece of methodical
research on the function of humor as a mode of facing oppressive social power was
carried out by Oberdlik (1942). He investigated the jokes that appeared in
Czechoslovakia during World War II, when the country was under Nazi occupation. In
analyzing the humor of that period, he stressed its role as a mode of coping with the
conquerors. One of his examples is as follows: "Did you hear that the Germans have
decided to lengthen the day to 29 hours?" "No, why?" "Because the Fuhrer has
promised them that by the spring they'll be in Moscow!"

Attempts to totally reject the current system of politics are

doomed to fail, and strengthen those in power already. Only
by making specific attainable demands on the system can we
hope to change it.
Zizek 07 (Slavoj Zizek. Resistance is Surrender 11/15/07,
http://www.lacan.com/zizsurcrit.htm)//IS
The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call
for a new politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let
alone seizing it, are accused of remaining stuck within the old paradigm: the task
today, their critics say, is to resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and
creating new spaces outside its control. This is, of course, the obverse of accepting
the triumph of capitalism. The politics of resistance is nothing but the moralising
supplement to a Third Way Left. Simon Critchleys recent book, Infinitely
Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of this position. For Critchley, the
liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish the state failed
miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from it:
anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or
sexist abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of
resistance to the state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of
denouncing the limitations of state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting
the politics of resistance at a distance from the state hinges on the ethical
dimension of the infinitely demanding call for justice: no state can heed this call,
since its ultimate goal is the real-political one of ensuring its own reproduction (its
economic growth, public safety, etc). Of course, Critchley writes, history is
habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to
defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultraleftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the
guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror
the archic violent sovereignty it opposes. So what should, say, the US Democrats
do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to the interstices of the state,
leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of anarchic resistance
to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like Hitler? Surely
in such a case one should mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty one
opposes? Shouldnt the Left draw a distinction between the circumstances in which
one would resort to violence in confronting the state, and those in which all one can
and should do is use mocking satire and feather dusters? The ambiguity of
Critchleys position resides in a strange non sequitur: if the state is here to stay, if it
is impossible to abolish it (or capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in)
the state? Why not accept the basic premise of the Third Way? Why limit oneself to
a politics which, as Critchley puts it, calls the state into question and calls the
established order to account, not in order to do away with the state, desirable
though that might well be in some utopian sense, but in order to better it or
attenuate its malicious effect? These words simply demonstrate that todays
liberal-democratic state and the dream of an infinitely demanding anarchic politics
exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking,
and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchleys anarchic

ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with
demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it
is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest
not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are
accused of betraying their own professed principles. The big demonstrations in
London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an
exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and
resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The
protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they dont agree with
the governments policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited
from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to
attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bushs reaction to mass
demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: You see, this is what we are
fighting for, so that what people are doing here - protesting against their
government policy - will be possible also in Iraq! It is striking that the course on
which Hugo Chvez has embarked since 2006 is the exact opposite of the one
chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed it (first
by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state
apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and
organising the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is
feeling the economic effects of capitals resistance to his rule (temporary
shortages of some goods in the state-subsidised supermarkets), he has announced
plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support him into a single party. Even some
of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at the expense of the popular
movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its lan? However, this
choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new party
function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the
mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees). What
should we say to someone like Chvez? No, do not grab state power, just withdraw,
leave the state and the current situation in place? Chvez is often dismissed as a
clown - but wouldnt such a withdrawal just reduce him to a version of
Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican leftists now refer to as
Subcomediante Marcos? Today, it is the great capitalists - Bill Gates, corporate
polluters, fox hunters - who resist the state. The lesson here is that the truly
subversive thing is not to insist on infinite demands we know those in power
cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an infinitely demanding
attitude presents no problem for those in power: So wonderful that, with your
critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is
possible. The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with
strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which cant be met with the
same excuse.

Satire cedes the political people want satirist to act for them
Bremner 10 a satirist known for his work on Spitting Image and Bremner,
Bird and Fortune (Rory, Has political satire gone too far: People want satirists to

fight their battles for them, Financial Times: Art,

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5784ac84-bc50-11df-8c0200144feab49a.html#axzz37BmCs8Yz)//IS
Im amused, and intrigued, by the perennial debate about the health of satire. Often
its a sign that the political opposition (or, as Jim Naughtie suggests, the media) is
weak and ineffectual, and in some way people want the satirists to fight their
battles for them.
I disagree with John Lloyd. I dont think satirists (at least any with a sense of selfirony) make, or should make, any grand claims for themselves or their power. In
fact, often it is the opposite. Remember Peter Cook pointing out how satire in the
1930s did so much to prevent the rise of Adolf Hitler? And I imagine most people
in Britain knew Saddam was a tyrant. We didnt need a satirist to tell us that but it
didnt stop Britain from arming him. (We did satirise that, by the way.)

They cede the political

Boggs 97

(Carl, Professor of Social Sciences at National University in Los Angeles,

The great retreat: Decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America,
Theory and Society, December 1997, SpringerLink, p. 773-774)//IS

The decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America poses a series
of great dilemmas and challenges. Many ideological currents scrutinized here
localism, metaphysics, spontaneism, post-modernism, Deep Ecologyintersect
with and reinforce each other. While these currents have deep origins in popular
movements of the 1960s and 1970s, they remain very much alive in the 1990s.
Despite their different outlooks and trajectories, they all share one thing in
common: a depoliticized expression of struggles to combat and overcome
alienation. [end page 773] The false sense of empowerment that comes with
such mesmerizing impulses is accompanied by a loss of public engagement, an
erosion of citizenship and a depleted capacity of individuals in large groups to
work for social change. As this ideological quagmire worsens, urgent problems
that are destroying the fabric of American society will go unsolvedperhaps even
unrecognizedonly to fester more ominously into the future. And such problems
(ecological crisis, poverty, urban decay, spread of infectious diseases,
technological displacement of workers) cannot be understood outside the larger
social and global context of internationalized markets, finance, and
communications. Paradoxically, the widespread retreat from politics, often
inspired by localist sentiment, comes at a time when agendas that ignore or
sidestep these global realities will, more than ever, be reduced to impotence. In
his commentary on the state of citizenship today, Wolin refers to the increasing
sublimation and dilution of politics, as larger numbers of people turn away from
public concerns toward private ones. By diluting the life of common
involvements, we negate the very idea of politics as a source of public ideals and
visions.74 In the meantime, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. The
unyielding truth is that, even as the ethos of anti-politics becomes more
compelling and even fashionable in the United States, it is the vagaries of
political power that will continue to decide the fate of human societies. This last

point demands further elaboration. The shrinkage of politics hardly means that
corporate colonization will be less of a reality, that social hierarchies will
somehow disappear, or that gigantic state and military structures will lose their
hold over people's lives. Far from it: the space abdicated by a broad citizenry,
well-informed and ready to participate at many levels, can in fact be filled by
authoritarian and reactionary elitesan already familiar dynamic in many lesserdeveloped countries. The fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian world, not
very far removed from the rampant individualism, social Darwinism, and civic
violence that have been so much a part of the American landscape, could be the
prelude to a powerful Leviathan designed to impose order in the face of disunity
and atomized retreat. In this way the eclipse of politics might set the stage for a
reassertion of politics in more virulent guiseor it might help further rationalize
the existing power structure. In either case, the state would likely become what
Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that
had vanished from civil society.75

Anthro
Satire is inherently anthropocentric
Kohavi, 07 Ph.D from the University of Edinburgh, (Zohar, Animals,
anthropocentrism, and morality analysing the discourse of the animal issue, The
University of Edinburgh, https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6582)//IS
This dissertation identifies and criticises a fundamental characteristic of the
philosophical discourse surrounding the animal issue: the underlying
anthropocentric reasoning that informs the accounts of both philosophy of mind and
moral philosophy. Such reasoning works from human paradigms as the only
possible starting point of the analysis. Accordingly, the aim of my dissertation is to
show how anthropocentric reasoning and its implications distort the inquiry of the
animal debate. In extracting the erroneous biases from the debate, my project
enables an important shift in the starting line of the philosophical inquiry of the
animal issue. In chapters one and two, I focus on philosophy of mind. I show how
philosophical accounts that are based on anthropocentric a priori reasoning are
inattentive to the relevant empirical findings regarding animals' mental capacities.
Employing a conceptual line of argument, I demonstrate that starting the analysis
from a human paradigm creates a rigid conceptual framework that unjustifiably
excludes the possibility of associating the relevant empirical findings in the
research. Furthermore, I show how the common approaches to the issue of animals'
belief and intentions deny that animals can have these capacities, and I
demonstrate how such denials can be avoided. The philosophical discourse that I
examine denies intentional mental capacities to animals. Such denials take place, I
maintain, because the analysis is anthropocentric: it uses humans' most
sophisticated capacities as the only possible benchmark for evaluating animals'
mental abilities. A central example of such anthropocentric reasoning is the oftmentioned view that there is a necessary link between language and intentionality.
Such a link indeed characterises humans. Yet the claim that there is no
intentionality without language is a problematic framework for analysing the
supposed intentionality of non-linguistic and prelinguistic creatures. Employing a
standard that applies to normal, adult humans excludes the possibility of animals'
intentionality from the outset. It seems, however, that intentionality is a capacity
that evolves in stages, and that simple intentional mental states do not require
language. At the same time, such an analysis ignores, to a large extent, cases of
attributing intentionality to pre-linguistic humans and even normal, adult humans.
Thus, I show how the denial that animals may have intentional mental capacities
results in a double standard. In chapters three to six, I critically examine the
anthropocentric nature of the debate concerning animals' moral status. The
anthropocentric reasoning relates to the conditions of moral status in an
oversimplified manner. I show that human prototypes, e.g., rational agency and
autonomy, have mistakenly served as conditions for either moral status in general
or of a particular type. Seemingly, using such conditions excludes from the proffered
moral domain not only animals, but also human moral patients. Yet eventually only
animals are excluded from the proffered moral domain. I identify and criticise the
manoeuvre that enables this outcome. That is, although the proffered conditions are

based on individual characteristics of moral agents, they are applied in a collective

manner in order to include human moral patients in the moral domain under
examination. I also show that when animals are granted moral status, this status
appears to be subjugated by human needs and interests, and therefore the very
potential to substantiate animal moral status becomes problematic. Significantly, I
also criticise arguments in favour of animals' moral status, claiming that they
sustain the oversimplified nature of the inquiry, hence reproducing the major
problems of the arguments they were originally designed to refute. As part of my
critique towards both such arguments and anthropocentric reasoning, I suggest a
non-anthropocentric framework that avoids oversimplification with regard to the
conditions of moral status. The aspiration of anthropocentric reasoning as well as of
pro-animals philosophers is to find a common denominator that is allegedly shared
by all members of the moral community as the single foundation of moral status,
which consists of individual characteristics. My framework challenges this aspiration
by showing that this common denominator cannot account for all cases. The
framework that I suggest enables establishing moral statuses upon distinctive
foundations, and at the same time, my proposal avoids falling into the trap of
speciesism.

Cap
Satire reinforces capitalism
Corner 13

(Adam, 11/21/13, research associate in psychology at Cardiff University, Ad nauseam,

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/how-advertising-turned-anti-consumerism-into-a-secret-weapon/)//RTF
In 1796, the English physician Edward Jenner injected an eight-year-old boy in Gloucestershire with cowpox.
Reasoning that absorbing a small amount of the virus would protect the child from a full-strength attack of smallpox
in the future, Jenners bold experiment founded the practice of vaccination. Two hundred years later, the marketing
industry has cottoned on to Jenners insight: a little bit of a disease can be a very useful thing. If youre one of the
more than 7 million people who have watched the global fast-food chain Chipotles latest advertisement, youll have
experienced this sleight of hand for yourself. The animated short film accompanied by a smartphone game
depicts a haunting parody of corporate agribusiness: cartoon chickens inflated by robotic antibiotic arms, scarecrow
workers displaced by ruthless automata. Chipotles logo appears only at the very end of the three-minute trailer; it
is otherwise branding-free. The motivation for this big-budget expos? Were trying to educate people about where
their food comes from, Mark Crumpacker, chief marketing officer at Chipotle, told USA Today, but millennials are
sceptical of brands that perpetuate themselves. Never mind that Chipotle itself with more than 1,500 outlets
across the US, and an annual turnover of $278 million is hardly treading lightly on the worlds agricultural
system. The real story is that the company is using a dose of anti-Big Food sentiment to inoculate the viewer
against not buying any more of its burritos. Chipotle are very happy to sell the idea that theyre on our side if it
helps to keep the millennials happy. If its advertising we dont like, then its advertising we wont get. In the UK, the
telecommunications giant Orange creates cinema ads which are spoof scenes from well-known feature films,
doctoring the scripts to include gratuitous references to cell phones. One popular instalment features the actor Jack
Black recreating a scene from Gullivers Travels (2010), in which Gulliver is captured by the tiny Lilliputians and
lashed to the ground with ropes. As the product placements for Orange become increasingly blatant, Black realises
he has been tricked into acting in a cellphone ad, breaks character and begins a speech about how he wont be
duped by Orange. Dont let a mobile phone ruin your film runs the slogan. Its annoying, but they know this. And
they know that you know that they know. And ... well you get the gist. These ads want to be our friends to
empathise with us against the tyranny of the corporate world they inhabit. Just when we thought wed cottoned on
to subliminal advertising, personalised sidebars on web pages, advertorials and infomercials, products started
echoing our contempt for them. Shut up! we shout at the TV, and the TV gets behind the sofa and shouts along

It seems almost quaint, now that popular culture is riddled with knowing, selfreferential nods to itself, but the aim of advertising used to be straightforward: to associate a product in a
with us.

literal and direct way with positive images of a desirable, aspirational life. How we chortle at those rosy-cheeked

Nowadays, we adopt the slogans and

imagery as ironic home decor wartime advertisements for coffee adorn our
kitchen walls; retro Brylcreem posters are pinned above the bathroom door. But our reappropriation of
families that dominated commercials in the post-war era.

artefacts from a previous era of consumerism sends a powerful message: we wouldnt be swayed by such naked

Genre-subverting
ads started to emerge as early as 1959, when the Volkswagen Beetles US Think
Small campaign began poking fun at the German cars size and idiosyncratic
design. In stark contrast to traditional US car adverts, whose brightly coloured depictions of gargantuan front
pitches today. The iconic VW 'Think small' campaign. The iconic VW 'Think small' campaign.

ends left the viewer in no doubt that bigger was better, the Beetle posters left most of the page blank, a tiny image
of the car itself tucked away in a corner. These designs spoke to a generation that was becoming aware of how the
media and advertising industries worked. The American journalist Vance Packard had blown the whistle on the tricks
of the advertising trade in The Hidden Persuaders (1957), and younger consumers increasingly saw themselves as
savvy. Selling to this demographic required not overeager direct pitches, but insouciant cool, laced with irony. Ads
for sports drinks bemoan the abundance of minutely differentiated sports drinks on the market, and beers yearn for
the day when a beer was just a beer In subsequent decades, self-aware adverts became the norm, and advertising
began to satirise the very concept of itself. In 1996, Sprite launched a successful campaign with the slogan Image
is nothing. Thirst is everything. Obey your thirst. In 2010, Kotex sent up the bizarre conventions of 1980s tampon
adverts (happy, dancing women, jars of blue liquid being spilt) by flashing up the question Why are Tampon adverts
so ridiculous? before displaying its latest range of sanitary products. Companies

try to convince you

that they are part of your family, says Tim Kasser, professor of psychology and an expert on consumer
culture at Knox College in Illinois. They want to create a sense of connection or even
intimacy between the viewer and the advertiser . An ad that says: Yes, I know you know that Im
an ad, and I know that you know that Im annoying you is a statement of empathy, and thus a statement of
connection. And as any salesperson will tell you, connection is key to the sales. This

technique of

cultivating empathy through shared cynicism has taken off over the past decade .
Today, ads for sports drinks bemoan the abundance of minutely differentiated sports
drinks on the market, and beers yearn for the day when a beer was just a beer . The Swedish
brewery Kopparberg has done more than any other company to promote the idea that cider can come in many
delicious fruity flavours, so if anyone is to blame for the difficulty in buying plain old apple cider, it is Kopparberg.
Yet their most recent invention is Naked apple cider. As the companys UK managing director Davin Nugent told
The Morning Advertiser: Innovation through fruit is not enough. The bigger picture is apple cider and were opening
the back gate into the category. The apple taste in cider has been lost and become bland were on to something
exciting. Corporate advertising is the ultimate shape-shifter; the perpetual tease. No sooner had the virulently anticapitalist Occupy Wall Street movement begun than the American rapper Jay Zs clothing label created and
marketed an Occupy All Streets spin-off T-shirt. But as citizen cynicism has advanced, the space in which
advertising can operate without tripping on its own rhetoric has become ever more restricted, and ever more
bizarre. Feeling jaded and cynical about samey scripts in ads? Commercials such as 2012s Old Milwaukee Super
Bowl spoof, in which Will Ferrells formulaic endorsement gets cut off mid-sentence, might still speak to you. Getting
a vicarious thrill from viral videos? Ads can mimic that excitement, with carefully coordinated campaigns to capture
the grassroots feel, such as the amateur footage of a man hacking the video screens in Times Square, New York, in
fact promoting the film Limitless (2011). Cynical about the lack of spontaneity in advertising messages? Real-time
news-led marketing can make even the most hackneyed of products seem cutting-edge although American
Apparels attempt in October last year to launch the #SandySale off the back of the worst Hurricane to hit New York
in living memory was not the blast they had hoped for. The ambiguous, semi-disguised adverts of today would
appear to be the commercials we deserve: self-cynical sales pitches for a jaded generation At the same time,
Magazine content, musical and theatrical entertainment and, in particular, online media are often entirely
integrated with the commercial messages that bankrolled them. This probably wouldnt have been possible if
advertisers had not made the strategic move from the blatant salesmanship of yore to the subtler, more oblique
arts of modern industry. As consumers cottoned on to the tricks of the trade, ads have stayed one step ahead.
There have, of course, been attempts to kick back. An entire lexicon has flourished around the idea of subverting
the advertising industry from acts of brandalism, which distort or undermine corporate iconography, to culture
jamming (satirical analyses of the business world). Adbusters, the long-running Canadian magazine, has dedicated
itself to exposing and challenging the the corporate world generally, not just advertising. But a 2011 report for the
Public Interest Research Centre about the cultural impact of commercial messages argued that: The public debate
about advertising such as it exists has also been curiously unfocused and sporadic. Civil society organisations
have almost always used the products advertised as their point of departure attacking the advertising of a
harmful product like tobacco, or alcohol, for instance rather than developing a deeper critical appraisal of

Perhaps it is that the cynical distance

inherent in knowing, self-immolating, empathetic adverts not only perpetuates
brands, but is at the foundation of advertising itself. By factoring in dissent, the ad
neutralises it in advance, like the stock market inoculating itself against future
shocks by including their likelihood in share prices. The advertising industry
anticipates and then absorbs its own opposition, like a politician cracking jokes at
his own expense to disarm a hostile media . And the industrys seemingly endless
capacity to perpetuate itself matters. Marketing is not simply a mirror of our
prevailing aspirations. It systematically promotes and presents a specific cluster of
values that undermine pro-social and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. In
other words, the more that were encouraged to obsess about the latest phone
upgrade, the less likely we are to concern ourselves with societys more pressing
problems. Thats a reason to want to keep a careful tab on advertisings elusive and
ephemeral forms. Encouragingly, there is some evidence that young people are quietly developing their own
advertising in the round. So what would a deeper look tell us?

defence mechanisms the click-through rate for online advertising has plummeted from a heady 78 per cent for
the worlds first banner ad in 1994 to a meagre 0.05 per cent for Facebook ads in 2011. The Beetle adverts at the
tail end of the 1950s picked up on the growing media smarts of the post-war generation, and Sprites ironic critique
of image-led branding could almost have been lifted from the arguments of the 1990s anti-globalisation movement.
The ambiguous, semi-disguised adverts of today would then appear to be the commercials we deserve: self-cynical
sales pitches for a jaded generation. Instead of questioning the economic mechanisms that lead to the
homogenisation of town centres, we shop and drink coffee in commercial spaces disguised in the stylishly-frayed

Satire has long been acknowledged as a paradoxical crutch

for a societys existing power structures: we laugh at political jibes, and that same laughter displaces
aesthetics of the counter-culture.

the desire for change. As such as Chipotle's which express our concerns about the failings of globalisation in a

safe space before packing them away are surely an equivalent safety valve for any subversive rumblings. We all
like to think that were above the dark art of advertising; that we are immune to its persuasive powers. But the
reality is that, though we might have been immunised, it is not against ads: it is against dissent.

Satire Bad
Satire renincribes existing political diferences and hurts
democracy
LaMarre, et, al 9 an assistant professor at the University of Minnesotas
School of Journalism and
Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic
communication, and entertainment media. LaMarres research examines the
persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes
and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009.
http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS
These results suggest that assumptions previously held regarding the role of
latenight comedy and political satire might not be accurate and that perception
plays a significant role in way audiences interpret the comedy. Extending this to
other forms of political satire such as late-night comedy programs, stand-up
comedians, animation, movies, and political cartoons, we must consider the
possibility that these political messages are influencing audiences in differingways
and that audience perceptions play a much stronger role that previously thought.
More importantly, political satire may not affect people in the way that it has
historically been assumed (i.e., satire has been feared and banned because it is
seen as a powerful force, Feinberg 1967). It is quite possible that this type of
political entertainment is processed with biases and reinterpreted in ways that
serve to reinforce political viewpoints. It 226 International Journal of
Press/Politicsappears from these results that biased processing serves a function of
reinforcing individually held political beliefs and attitudes. Thus, when conditions for
biased processing exist (e.g., Colberts deadpan satire) polarization is likely to
result. As individuals on each side of the political issue interpret the source as
targeting the opposition and agreeing with their own viewpoint, the two opposing
sides are likely to strengthen their own position as the correct position, thereby
leading to a deeper divide between the two groups. This type of polarization
efect has been found to have negative consequences for democracy (e.g.,
Cigler and Getter 1977). While it is important to consider that much of the political
satire offered by comedians includes contextual cues to aid audiences in
interpreting the messages, it is equally important to note that when biased
processing takes place the effects of such processing will likely play a significant
role in strengthening attitudes (Krosnick and Petty 1995). The post hoc analysis
revealed the mediating role that biased perceptions of an ambiguous source can
play between individual political ideology and individual political attitudes. While
this was a cursory analysis and more work in the area of biased processing and
political attitudes is needed before conclusions can be reached, it does appear that
conservatives biased perceptions of Colberts attitudes had a significant influence
on their individual attitudes about the same attitude object. Strong conservatives
were significantly more likely to perceive Colbert as having personal political
attitudes that were consistent with their own. These biased perceptions of Colberts
personal attitudes were a strong predictor of individual attitudes, such that the
individuals attitudes were significantly more likely to remain consistent with

perceptions of Colberts attitude. In sum, conservatives personal attitudes were

influenced by their perception of Colberts attitude, and relatively strong
conservatives were more likely to report attitudes consistent with their perceptions
of Colberts attitude. Although we are far from suggesting that perceptions of
Colberts attitudes are driving individual attitudes, we can conclude that biased
perceptions are playing an important mediating role in this process that merits
much more investigation. From these analyses, it appears that biased processing is
serving two potential roles: attitude formation and strengthening. Thus, we suggest
that future studies focus on these two roles of biased processing in the study of
political entertainment and attitudes. In addition to examining the potential
influence of biased processing on attitudes, future studies should also examine
biased message processing and long-term recall of the satirists political position.
For example, do people who watch late-night political comedy and consume
ambiguous political messages from The Colbert Report have accurate recall of
Colberts political viewpoint at a later time? Or, is there a potential sleeper effect
that should be examined? It might be possible that even those who accurately
identified the satire and understood Colbert was joking experience difficulty in
accurately recalling the comedians political messages.

Satire Fails
Satire fails to change mindsets Colbert and data proves
LaMarre, et, al 9 an assistant professor at the University of Minnesotas
School of Journalism and
Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic
communication, and entertainment media. LaMarres research examines the
persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes
and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009.
http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS
This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert
Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert.
Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous
political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment
(N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted
perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant
difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives
were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely
meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire
and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also
significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post
hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated
the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

Satire fails audiences see what they want to see

LaMarre, et, al 9 an assistant professor at the University of Minnesotas
School of Journalism and
Mass Communication, where she studies political communication, strategic
communication, and entertainment media. LaMarres research examines the
persuasive influence of political entertainment media on individual-level attitudes
and opinions. (Heather L. "The Irony of Satire." Apr. 2009.
http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf)//IS
Recent work in social psychology demonstrates that individuals process information
in ways that personally benefit them and that people tend to see what they want to
see when the information is ambiguous (e.g., Balcetis and Dunning 2006; Kunda
1990; Long and Toppino 2004). Because satire is often ambiguous, biased
information processing models provide an excellent framework for understanding
how audiences see what they want to see in Colberts political satire.As such, the
present study uses ambiguous message processing theory (Balcetis and Dunning
2006) to address two core questions: (1) what role does individual-level political
ideology play in processing political satire, and (2) are individuals driven by in-group
favoritism or a similar need to reinforce the favorable status of their political group
to see what they want to see in political satire? Taken together, these questions

raise the possibility that individuals, motivated by their needs for political affiliation
and self-enhancement, engage in biased processing of political messages offered in
ambiguous form (i.e., deadpan satire or parody). What follows is an overview of
these concepts and ideas, results of an online survey with an embedded clip of
Stephen Colbert, and a discussion of the findings and their implications for political
entertainment research.

Visibility
1NC
Revolution will be destroyed as soon as it becomes visible- an
invisible movement solves the af best
The Invisible Committee 7

(The Invisible Committee, 2007, an anonymous group of French professors,

phd candidates, and intellectuals, in the book The Coming Insurrection published by Semiotext(e) (attributed to
the Tarnac Nine by the French police), http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf)//RTF

there's no escape from the present. That's not

For those who want absolutely to have hope, it knocks down every
support. Those who claim to have solutions are proven wrong almost immediately.
From any angle... Whatever angle you look at it from,
the least of its virtues.

It's understood that now everything can only go from bad to worse. "There's no future for the future" is the wisdom
behind an era that for all its appearances of extreme normalcy has come to have about the consciousness level of

The sphere of political representation is closed . From left to right, it's the
same nothingness acting by turns either as the big shots or the virgins, the same sales
shelf heads, changing up their discourse according to the latest dispatches from the information service. Those
who still vote give one the impression that their only intention is to knock out the
polling booths by voting as a pure act of protest. And we've started to understand
that in fact its only against the vote itself that people go on voting. Nothing we've seen
the first punks.

can come up to the heights of the present situation; not by far. By its very silence, the populace seems infinitely
more 'grown up' than all those squabbling amongst themselves to govern it do. Any Belleville chibani1 is wiser in
his chats than in all of those puppets grand declarations put together. The lid of the social kettle is triple-tight, and
the pressure inside wont stop building. The ghost of Argentinas Que Se Vayan Todos2 is seriously starting to haunt
the ruling heads. The fires of November 2005 will never cease to cast their shadow on all consciences. Those first
joyous fires were the baptism of a whole decade full of promises. The medias suburbs vs. the Republic myth, if
its not inefficient, is certainly not true. The fatherland was ablaze all the way to downtown everywhere, with fires
that were methodically snuffed out. Whole streets went up in flames of solidarity in Barcelona and no one but the
people who lived there even found out about it. And the country hasnt stopped burning since. Among the accused
we find diverse profiles, without much in common besides a hatred for existing society; not united by class, race, or
even by neighborhood. What was new wasnt the suburban revolt, since that was already happening in the 80s,
but the rupture with its established forms. The assailants werent listening to anybody at all anymore, not their big
brothers, not the local associations assigned to help return things to normal. No SOS Racism3 could sink its
cancerous roots into that event, one to which only fatigue, falsification, and media omert4 could feign putting an

The whole series of nocturnal strikes, anonymous attacks, wordless destruction,

had the merit of busting wide open the split between politics and the political. No
one can honestly deny the obvious weight of this assault which made no demands,
and had no message other than a threat which had nothing to do with politics. But
youd have to be blind not to see what is purely political about this resolute
negation of politics, and youd certainly have to know absolutely nothing about the
autonomous youth movements of the last 30 years . Like abandoned children we burned the first
end.

baby toys of a society that deserves no more respect than the monuments of Paris did at the end of Bloody Week5

the vague aggregate of

social groupings, institutions, and individual bubbles that we designate by the antiphrase society has no substance, because theres no language left to express
common experiences with. It took a half-century of fighting by the Lumires to thaw out the possibility of
-- and knows it. Theres no social solution to the present situation. First off because

a French Revolution, and a century of fighting by work to give birth to the fearful Welfare State. Struggles creating
the language in which the new order expresses itself. Nothing like today. Europe is now a de-monied continent that
sneaks off to make a run to the Lidl6 and has to fly with the low-cost airlines to be able to keep on flying. None of
the problems formulated in the social language are resolvable. The retirement pensions issue, the issues of
precariousness, the youth and their violence can only be kept in suspense as long as the ever more surprising
acting out they thinly cover gets managed away police-like. No ones going to be happy to see old people being
wiped out at a knockdown price, abandoned by their own and with nothing to say. And those whove found less
humiliation and more benefit in a life of crime than in sweeping floors will not give up their weapons, and prison

wont make them love society. The rage to enjoy of the hordes of the retired will not take the somber cuts to their
monthly income on an empty stomach, and will get only too excited about the refusal to work among a large sector

no guaranteed income granted the day after a quasi-uprising

will lay the foundations for a new New Deal, a new pact, and a new peace. The
social sentiment is rather too evaporated for all that. As their solution, theyll just
never stop putting on the pressure, to make sure nothing happens, and with it well
have more and more police chases all over the neighborhood . The drone that even according
of the youth. And to conclude,

to the police indeed did fly over Seine-Saint-Denis7 last July 14th is a picture of the future in much more
straightforward colors than all the hazy images we get from the humanists. That they took the time to clarify that it

The country is going to be cut

up into ever more air-tight zones. Highways built along the border of the sensitive
neighborhoods already form walls that are invisible and yet able to cut them off
from the private subdivisions. Whatever good patriotic souls may think about it, the management of
was not armed shows pretty clearly the kind of road were headed down.

neighborhoods by community is most effective just by its notoriety. The purely metropolitan portions of the
country, the main downtowns, lead their luxurious lives in an ever more calculating, ever more sophisticated, ever
more shimmering deconstruction. They light up the whole planet with their whorehouse red lights, while the BAC8
and the private security companies -- read: militias -- patrols multiply infinitely, all the while benefiting from being

The catch-22 of the present, though

perceptible everywhere, is denied everywhere. Never have so many psychologists,
sociologists, and literary people devoted themselves to it, each with their own
special jargon, and each with their own specially missing solution. Its enough just to listen
able to hide behind an ever more disrespectful judicial front.

to the songs that come out these days, the trifling new French music, where the petty-bourgeoisie dissects the
states of its soul and the K1Fry mafia9 makes its declarations of war, to know that this coexistence will come to an

This book is signed in the name of an

imaginary collective. Its editors are not its authors. They are merely content to do a
little clean-up of whats scattered around the eras common areas, around the
murmurings at bar-tables, behind closed bedroom doors. Theyve only determined a few
end soon and that a decision is about to be made.

necessary truths, whose universal repression fills up the psychiatric hospitals and the painful gazes. Theyve made
themselves scribes of the situation. Its the privilege of radical circumstances that justice leads them quite logically
to revolution. Its enough just to say what we can see and not avoid the conclusions to be drawn from it.

2NC
The movement has to stay invisible- visibility allows it to
quickly be crushed
The Invisible Committee 7

(The Invisible Committee, 2007, an anonymous group of French professors,

phd candidates, and intellectuals, in the book The Coming Insurrection published by Semiotext(e) (attributed to
the Tarnac Nine by the French police), http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf)//RTF

Stay invisible. Put anonymity on the offense.

In a demonstration, a unionist pulls the mask off an

anonymous protester who had just broken a window: Assume responsibility for what youre doing instead of hiding

When the leftists of all

continually make their cause more visible whether that of the homeless, of women, or of
immigrants in the hope that it will get taken care of, theyre doing exactly the
opposite of what they ought to. To not be visible, but rather to turn to our advantage
the anonymity weve been relegated to, and with conspiracies, nocturnal and/or
masked actions, to make it into an unassailable attack-position. The fires of November
2005 offer a model. No leader, no demands, no organization, but words, gestures,
complicities. To be nothing socially is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of
recognition (to be recognized: but by who?), but on the contrary is the precondition for maximum
freedom of action. Not signing your name to your crimes , but only attaching some imaginary
yourself. To be visible is to be out in the open that is, above all to be vulnerable.
nations

acronym people still remember the ephemeral BAFT (Tarterets53 Anti- Cop Brigade)

is a way to preserve

that freedom.

Obviously, one of the regimes first defensive maneuvers was to create a suburban slum
subject to treat as the author of the riots of November 2005. Just take a look at the ugly mugs of those who are

Visibility must be avoided.

But a force that gathers in the shadows cant escape it forever. Our appearance as a
force has to be held back until the opportune moment. Because the later we
become visible, the stronger well be. And once weve entered the realm of visibility,
our days are numbered; either well be in a position to pulverize its reign quickly, or
it will crush us without delay .
someone in this society if you want help understanding the joy of being no one.