No hay tregua

Vuelve el copyright y la censura, aquella que creímos superada. No es de extrañar cuando nuevas formas de fascismo se siguen colando por las grietas de nuestra sociedad. Hoy la Eurocámara ha aprobado poner cerco a Internet; encorsetarlo más, apretando a una ciudadanía que no termina de espabilar ante semejantes ultrajes.

Parece que siempre llegamos tarde para defender la Libertad de Expresión, la Cultura, el Conocimiento Libre y cuando queremos actuar sentimos que tenemos que derribar montañas. Las protestas contra la Ley Sinde, la iniciativa de #Nolesvotes, las #Opgoya de 2011 y 2012, las manis contra ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, contra la Ley Mordaza… Todas esas iniciativas civiles luchaban contra proyectos gubernamentales que inclinaban la balanza hacia un mismo lado. La reacción era y sigue siendo, simple y llanamente, luchar contra abusos. Pero parece que quienes defendíamos hace algunos años estos temas erámos locos predicando en cerebros vacíos.

Los tiempos de no rendirse, de defender estos ataques en forma de leyes nacionales o internacionales, deben seguir. Y nosotros haremos lo propio.

Por eso, la plataforma de Artistas por la Libertad de Expresión (ALE) convocan una marcha el próximo 1 de Julio a la 13:00 en el madrileño Templo de Debod hasta Ferraz.

Anónimo luchador
nunca tendrán las armas la razón
pero cuando se aprende a llorar por algo
también se aprende a defenderlo.

Nos vemos en las calles.

 

1298176232_850215_0000000000_sumario_normal

Anuncios

The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

En Julio del 2008 Aaron Swartz en Italia escribió y diseminó en Internet este manifiesto. Como referente nuestro, creemos oportuno volver a difundirlo pues en estos tiempos Internet y la Libertad de Información y Expresión se encuentran en horas bajas.

Si a día de hoy no conocéis el alcance de todo lo que hizo en su breve vida, os recomendamos que leáis todo lo posible sobre Aaron. Como muestra, este breve manifiesto que puede servir de aliciente a muchos.

Internet podrá ser muchas cosas pero sobre todo es un acto: compartir. Ahí radica toda su fuerza y poder.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.

“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.

Aaron Swartz

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Nada es sagrado, todo se puede decir

Cualquier tiempo pasado fue mejor, dijo alguien. Quizá verdad o quizá verdad a medias o quizá mentira, no deja de ser cierto que si echamos la vista atrás aunque sea sólo siete años, la represión más o menos velada en diferentes espectros de nuestra sociedad se ha recrudecido. Como una sombra difuminada de poder legislativo que nos rodea y la cual es complicado sortear. O directamente cuando la policía, una hija de la gran puta, irrumpe en toda su brutalidad.

g19_18502577

Uno de esos espectros a los que hacemos referencia es la Libertad de Expresión. De la cual nos acordamos cuando quizá ya es demasiado tarde para escapar a ésa represión a la que hacíamos referencia. Supuestamente vivimos en un estado políticosocial en el debe estar garantizada dicha Libertad; pero la realidad, maldita realidad, no se ajusta a ése modelo ideal de sociedad que la Constitución supuestamente nos otorga.

Por tanto, desde este blog y desde nuestro ideario colectivo al cual pertenecemos, condenamos y repudiamos cualquier ataque a dicha Libertad de Expresión. Tenemos memoria suficiente para no olvidar ataques del pasado. La actualidad, que a veces es la que manda en estos días, nos informó acerca de la identificación por parte de la guardia civil al cantante de Gatillazo y ex La Polla Records, Evaristo.

Ya no solo es un ataque a la Libertad de Expresión si no a la Cultura en general. En España, se persigue a la cultura desde hace muchos años ya. Y parece que nos hemos acostumbrado. Sinceramente, ciudadano, tu comodidad y normalidad es la ruina de todos. Por lo que hacemos nuestra ésa identificación de la guardia civil y lejos de amedrentarnos, seguiremos defendiendo la Cultura, el Conocimiento y la Libertad en todas sus formas.

No queremos despedirnos sin haceros un spoiler (somos así de cabrones) de un libro que ha sido de lectura continuada durante nuestra inactividad. Nos acompaña desde hace ya muchos años y queremos compartiros el final, que merece ser leído. Se trata de Nada es sagrado, todo se puede decir de Raoul Vaneigem.

 

La libertad nunca ha de estar desarmada

Las armas que confieren la soberanía de la vida y de su generosidad natural están en fase de convertirse en el arma absoluta, volviendo obsoletos los fusiles y las jurisdicciones de la protección humanitaria.

Autorizad todas las opiniones, ya sabremos reconocer las nuestras, y aprenderemos a anular la fuerza de atracción de sus efectos nocivos, a impedir que la corrupción del lucro y del poder continúe gangrenando las mentalidades, y las combatiremos mediante la única crítica que las puede erradicar: pensando por nuestra cuenta, dejarnos de ponernos en estado de dependencia, descubriendo al albur de nuestros deseos qué existencia queremos llevar, creando situaciones que imposibiliten el imperio de la inhumanidad.

 

El Conocimiento es Libre.

Somos Anonymous.

No perdonamos.

No olvidamos.

Esperadnos, siempre.

 

ZombiesRata y EspíasRadio

En este post nos vamos a sincerar con vosotros. Tanta inactividad o actividad irregular fue por dos factores: el contacto con la enfermedad mental conocida como Trastorno Bipolar y comprobar qué pasaba si ejercíamos nuestro derecho a la no-acción. Nuestro nombre como grupo activista pesa a veces como una losa, como si tuviéramos la obligación de estar en perpetuo movimiento siempre.

Fue en el encierro en una unidad psiquiátrica de uno de nuestros miembros donde éste se topó con un mundo fascinante. No tanto por las drogas que ahí ofrecían sino por tener la oportunidad de conocer la mente humana en uno de sus desconocidos infiernos. Una paciente que conoció en la sala común contaba historias acerca de los EspíasRadio. Entre brote psicótico, rechazo a tomar la medicación y visitas familiares, su día a día consistía en hablar en voz alta sola o en ocasiones contar muy seriamente una invasión de tipo gubernamental, consistente en usar a los EspíasRadio. Mecanismos que controlan tu mente y tu vida diciéndote lo que debes hacer para permanecer en la senda de los normales.

Ante semejante escenario nuestro compañero solo podía dejar los días pasar, encerrado sin poder hacer nada más que dibujar, ver la tele, dormir o encerrarse en su celda mirando el vacío. Las letras de Eskorbuto mantenían su cordura, pues pudo conocer gracias a su encierro la esquizofrenia. La locura tiene muchas caras y, lo peor es que a veces, tiene bata blanca y tiene cargo de psiquiatra.

A su salida del centro lo primero que hizo fue fumar dos cigarrillos seguidos. Y mientras los meses pasaban con la mente renqueante atiborrada de Zyprexa, empezó a comprobar que era un ZombieRata. Iba a trabajar, pagaba facturas y sus impuestos, se vestía de manera estúpida, obedecía para mantener su trabajo y se tomaba todas las noches su medicación.

Con el tiempo se dió cuenta que no era el único. El mundo es una alcantarilla en donde las ratas campan a sus anchas. La vida más asquerosa que os podáis imaginar, comiendo comida rápida barata, come mierda vitaminada, come mierda concentrada… Los ZombiesRata son aquellos que quieren escapar a otra alcantarilla pero no pueden. Se manifiestan contra las ratas que gobiernan pero no siempre consiguen lo que quieren. Todo por culpa de las ratas de las fuerzas armadas y las ratas con porra. Los zombies son más pero están cada vez más temerosos pues sólo quieren ejercer sus derechos cada cuatro años votando a un grupo de ratas que les promete mierda buena. Pero todo es mierda, así que da igual a quien voten porque todo va a seguir siendo una mierda.

nebreda

Nos han cagado encima con tanta democracia que ya no hay agua que nos limpie. Una peli de finales de los 90 decía que Matrix nos rodea, es cada acto que hacemos como ciudadano. Nada más equivocado; todo es mierda. Es todo lo que haces para no morir de hambre.

Todos somos prostitutas para comer mierda.

Unabomber 40 años después

El 25 de Mayo de 1978 un hombre envía un paquete bomba. Iba dirigido a Buckley Crist, profesor de ingenería de materiales de Universidad Northwestern, Chicago. Se colocó en el parking del campus como si hubiera sido devuelto, pero dado que el profesor no mandó ningún paquete previamente avisó al oficial de guardia del campus. Éste abrió dicho paquete y resultó herido en su mano izquierda.

Ése día se inició la carrera terrorista de Ted Kaczynski contra el sistema sociotecnológico, que devendría en ser el terrorista más buscado a nivel intercional en EEUU. Sus objetivos fueron tecnócratas así como aeropuertos. Tiempo después escribiría su conocido Manifiesto, lo que daría un apoyo ideológico a su causa.

unabomber-sketch

No era un terrorista al uso. Utilizaba materiales caseros y las bombas las fabricaba él mismo. Pero lo más relevante no eran tanto sus objetivos como la forma de vida que eligió. Aislado en una caseta de madera construida entre él y su hermano decidió vivir ajeno al mundo industrializado que le rodeaba. Usaba el sistema lo mínimo imprescindible tanto para sus bombas como para subsistir, lo que es loable desde el punto de vista de la supervivencia.

Se ha escrito mucho sobre él desde que fue detenido y condenado a cadena perpetua. Para nosotros, antes que el terrorista, está un genio de nuestro tiempo que merece nuestra máxima atención dada su ideología. Pues parece que no tiene ninguna salvo erradicar de la forma que sea nuestra dependencia, cada día más invasiva, a la tecnología que nos rodea.

Hoy ensalzamos su figura, pues hace 40 años que un hombre solitario decidió emprender una cruzada contra un sistema abusivo que aliena al ser humano en prácticamente todas sus facetas vitales. Os animamos a indagar sobre su vida, su pensamiento. Existen numerosos libros, más o menos precisos, sobre su ideario y su vida en los bosques.

Netflix emitió hace unos meses un biopic sobre su captura. Aunque bien representado, no profundiza nada sobre Ted, por lo que solorecomendamos su visionado por mera curiosidad.

¡Leed! ¡Leed malditos!

 

The Road to Revolution

A revolution is not a dinner party…

-Mao Zedong-

A great revolution is brewing. What this means is that the necessary preconditions for revolution are being created. Whether the revolution will become reality will depend on the courage, determination, persistence and effectiveness of revolutionaries.

The necessary preconditions for revolution are these: There must be a strong development of values that are inconsistent with the values of the dominant classes in society, and the realization of the new values must be impossible without a collapse of the existing sctructure of society.

When these conditions are present, there arises an irreconcilable conflict between the new values and the values that are necessary for the maintenance of the existing structure. The tension between the two systems of values grows and can be resolved only through the eventual defeat of one of the two. If the new system of values is vigorous enough, it will prove victorious and the existing structure of society will be destroyed.

This is the way in which the tow greatest revolutions of modern times – the French and Russian Revolutions – came about. Just such a conflict of values is building up in pur society today. If the conflict becomes sufficiently intense, it will lead to the greatest revolution that the world has ever seen.

The central sctructure of modern society, the key element on which everything else depends, is technology. Technology is the principal factor determining the way in which modern people live and is the decisive force in modern history. This is the expressed opinion of various learned thinkers, and I doubt that many serious historians could be found who would venture to disagree with it. However, you don’t have to rely on learned opinions to realize that technology is the decisive factor in the modern world. Just look around you and you can seet it yourself. Despite the vast differences that formerly existed between the cultures of the various industrialized countries, all of these countries are now converging rapidly toward a common culture and a common way of life, and they are doing so because of their common technology.

Because technology is the central structure of modern society – the structure on which everything else depends – the strong development of values totally inconsistent with the needs of the technological system would fulfill the preconditions for revolution. This kind of development is taking place right now.

Fifty years ago, when I was a kid, warm approval or even enthusiasm for technology were almost universal. By 1962 I had become hostile toward technology myself, but I wouldn’t have dare to expressthat opinion openly, for in those days nearly everyone assumed taht only a kook, or maybe a Bible-thumper from the backwoods of Mississippi, could oppose technology. I now know that even at that time there were few thinkers who wrote critically about technology. But they were so rare and so little heard from that until I was almost 30 years old I never knew that anyone but myself opposed technological progress.

Since then there has been a profound change in attitudes toward technology. Of course, most people in our society don’t have an attitude toward technology, because they never bother to think about technology as such. If the advertising industry teaches them to buy some new technogizmo, then they will buy it and play with it, but hey won’t think about it. The change in attitudes toward technology has occurred among the minority of people who think seriously about the society in which they live.

As far as I know, almost the only thinking people who remain enthusiastic about technology are those who stan to profit from it in some way, such as scientists, engineers, corporate executives and military men. A much larger number of people are cynical about modern society and have lost faith in its institutions. They no longer respect a political system in which the most despicable candidates can be succesfully sold to the public through sophisticated propaganda techniques. They are contemptuous of an electronic entertainment industry that feed us garbage. They know that schoolchildren are being drugged (with Ritalin, etc.) to keep them docile in the classroom, they know that species are becoming extinct at an abnormal rate, that environmental catastrophe is a very real possibility, and that technology is driving us all into the unknown at reckless speed, with consequences that may be utterly disastrous. But, because they have no hope that the technological juggernaut can be stopped, they have grown apathetic. They simply accept technological progress and its consequences as unavoidable evils, and they try not to think about the future.

But at the same time there are growing numbers of people, especially young people, who are willing to face squarely the appalling character of what the technoindustrial system and replace them with opposing values. They are willing to dispense with the physical security and comfort, the Disney-like-toys, ad the easy solutions to all problems that technology provides. They don’t need the kind of status that comes from owning more and better material goods that one’s neighbor does. In place of these spiritually empty values they are ready to embrace a lifestyle of moderation that rejects the obscene level of consumption that characterizes the technoindustrial way of life; they are capable of opting for courage and independence in place of modern man’s cowardly srvitude; and above all they are prepared to discard the technological ideal of human control over nature and replace it with reverence for the totality of all life on Earth – free and wild as it was created through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

How can we use this change of attitude to lay the foundation for a revolution?

One of our tasks, obviously, is to help promote the growth of the new values and spread revolutionary ideas that will encourage active opposition to the technoindustrial system. But spreading ideas, by, itself, is not very effective. Consider the response of a person who is exposed to revolutionary ideas. Let’s assume that she or he is a thoughtful person who is sickened on hearing or reading of the horrors that technology has in store for the world, but feels stimulated and hopeful on learning that better, richer, more fulfilling ways of life are possible. What happens next?

Maybe nothing. In order to maintain an interest in revolutionary ideas, people have to have that those ideas will actually be put into effect, and they need to have an opportunity to participate personally in carrying out the ideas. If a person who has been exposed to revolutionary ideas is not offered anything practical that she can do against the technosystem, and if nothing significant is going on to keep her hope alive, she will probably lose interest. Additional exposures to the revolutionary message will have less and less effect on her the more times they are repeated, until eventually she becomes completely apathetic and refuses to think any further about the technology problem.

In order to hold people’s interest, revolutionaries have to show them that things are happening -significant things- and they have to give people an opportunity to participate actively in working toward revolution. For this reason an effective revolutionary movement is necessary, a movement that is capable of making things happen, and that interested people can join or cooperate whith so as to take an active part in preparing the way for ideas, the ideas will prove relatively useless.

For the present, therefore, the most important task of revolutionaries is to build an effective movement.

The effectiveness of a revolutionary movement is not measured only by the number of people who belong to it. Far more important than the numerical strength of a movement are its cohesiveness, its determination, its commitment to a well-defined goal, its courage, and its subborn persistence. Possesing these qualities, a surprisingly small number of people can outweight the vacillating and uncommited majority. For example, the Bolsheviks were never a numerically large party, yet it was they who determined the course that the Russian Revolution took. (I hasten to add that I am NOT an admirer of the Bolsheviks. To them, human beings were of value only as gears in the technological system. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn lessons from the history of Bolshevism).

An effective revolutionary movement will not worry too much about public opinion. Of course, a revolutionary movement should not offend public opinion when it has no good reason to do so. But the movement should never sacrifice its integrity by compromising its basic principles in the face of public hostility. Catering to public opinion may bring short-term advantage, but in the long run the movement will have its best chance of success if it stick to its principles through thick and thin, no matter how unpopular those principles may become, and if it is willing to go head-to-head against the system on the fundamental issues even when the odds are all against the movement. A movement that backs off or compromises when the going gets tough is likely to lose its cohesiveness or turn into whisy-washy reform movement. Maintaining the cohesion and integrity of the movement, and proving its courage, are far more important than keeping the goodwill of the general public. The public is fickle, and its goodwill can turn to hostility and back again overnight.

A revolutionary movement needs patience and persistence. It may have to wait several decades before the occasion for revolution arrives, and during those decades it has to occupy itself with preparing the way for revolution. This was what the revolutionary movement in Russia did. Patience and persistence often pay off in the long run, even contrary to all expectation. History provides many examples of seemingly lost causes that won out in the end because of the stubborn persistence of their adherents, their refusal to accept defeat.

On the other hand, the occasion for revolution may arrive unexpectedly, and a revolutionary movement has to be well prepared in advance to take advantage of the occasion when it does arrive. It is said that the Bolsheviks never expected to see a revolution in their own lifetimes, yet, because their movement was well constituted for decisive action at any time, they were able to make effective use of the unforseen breakdown of the Tsarist regime and the ensuing chaos.

Above all, a revolutionary movement must have courage. A revolution in the modern world will be no dinner party. It will be deadly and brutal. You can be sure that when the technoindustrial system begins to break down, the result will not be the sudden conversion of the entire human race into flower children. Instead, various groups will compete for power. If the opponents of technology prove toughest, they will be able to assure that the breakdown of the technosystem becomes complete and final. If other groups prove tougher, they may be able to salvage the technosystem and get it running again. Thus, and effective revolutionary movement must consist of people who are willing to pay price that a real revolution demands: They must be ready to face disaster, suffering and death.

There already is a revolutionary movement of sorts, but it is low effectiveness.

First, the existing movement of low effectiveness because it is not focused on a clear, definite goal. Instead, it has a hodgepodge of vaguely-defined goals such as an end to “domination”, “protection of the environment” and “justice” (whatever that means) for women, gays and animals.

Most of these goals are not even revolutionary ones. As was pointed out at the beginning of this article, a precondition for revolution is the development of values that can be realized only through the destruction of the existing structure of society. But, to take an example, feminist goals such as equal status for women and an end to rape and domestic abuse are perfectly compatible with the existing structure of society. IN fact, realization of these goals would even make the technoindustrial system function more efficiently. The same applies to most other “activist” goals. Consequently, these goals are reformist.

Among so many other goals, the only truly revolutionary goal -namely, the destruction of the technoindustrial system itself- tends to get lost in the shuffle. For revolution to become a reality, it is necessary that there should emerge a movement that has a distinct identify of its own, and is dedicated solely to eliminating the technosystem. It must not be distracted by reformist goals such as justice for this or that group.

Second, the existing movement is of low effectiveness because too many of the people in the movement are there for the wrong reasons. For some of them, revolution is just a vague and indefinite hopre rather than a real and practical goal. Some are concerned more with their own special grievances than with the overall problem of technological civilization. For others, revolution is only a kind of game that they play as an outlet for rebellious impulses. For still others, participation in the movement is an ego-trip. They compete for status, or they write “analyses” and “critiques” that serve more to feed their own vanity that to advance the revolutionary cause.

To create an effective revolutionary movement it will be necessary to gather people for whom revolution is not an abstract theory, a vague fantasy, a mere hope for the indefinite future, or a game played as an outlet for rebellious impulses, but a real, definite, and practical goal to be worked for in a practical way.

 

Those Once Loyal

We want in this post to give some light for those who stood with us in our struggle. Those who had more or less collaboration in the past; without your commitment we could never achieve what we gained. The fight for Freedom is an ardous path so any companion is more than great to continue fighting.

Therefore, in the coming battles, we need to be more united as ever. Anytime is good to stand up and start a riot. And keep the fire burning-

Briefing, we dedicate to all the anonymous citizens who support us this marvelous song from Bolt Thrower.

 

bladerunner2049

 

Valiant in the midst of conflict
In memoriam honours distinctive
At half-mast the colours are raised
The tragic waste of life once gave.

Immortalised plaque of remembrance
With reverence their names are listed
Glorified and in honour held
In commemorance of those that fell.

To those once loyal now wreathed in crimson
Solemn reminder of silent sacrifice
To the once loyal forever wrapped in glory
In white crossed acres – lines of sorrow laid.

To those once loyal now wreathed in crimson
Solemn reminder of silent sacrifice
To the once loyal forever wrapped in glory
In white crossed acres – lines of sorrow laid.

Brave are the deeds
Of fallen victorious
Never forgotten
Lonely are the glorious.