When the performance was in Gloucester Green, a girl who had seen them in Cornmarket Street said "Them again?"

I thought it was poignant and it reminded of every time I walk past a chain store.

A few pictures of the days events.

Tomorrow it's business as usual, and people will still remain consumerist drones. The G8 protest will come and go, there might be a bit about clashes with the police, but once it's all over the world will still be fucked over.

In a nutshell, no samba bands, no street theatre, and no shouting at barriers is going to stop them. It would be great if it did.

Does the previous commenter advocate doing nothing? These activities draw attention to the issues and engage people. One event alone does not do it but continual reinforcement does have an effect. Look at most big changes in the world and you will find a few committed people starting and momentum gathering. Example Color bar on buses and lunch restaurants in US, women's vote, union movement, Ghandi, Georga.

One can sit and say there is nothing we can do but that just gives them free rein to do as they like without any accountability. In action is not an option

Ace...

Pesants revolt of 1381 - totally crushed.
Anarchist groups in the Russian Revolution - totally crushed.
Anarchist insurrection in Spanish Civil War - totally crushed.
Miners strike of 1984 (and don't give me any BS about the fact the organisers were that nasty Scargill and his cronies and not an workers utopia) - totally crushed.
Poll Tax riots - false victory - Council Tax as bad, worse in some cases, than Poll Tax - effectively crushed as people haven't been so outraged at the Council Tax.

If I am going to be oppressed by the evil State no matter what, at least I will endevour to be as far out of harm's way as possible.

And yes, I am a coward.

middle finger - getting as far out of harms way as possible is difficult, given that capitalism controls the whole globe. The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, who took part in the events of 1968, described revolutionary practice with the maxim, "Flee, but pick up a weapon." Escape is the first part of our practice, but it can't be the only part, because flight inevitably brings us into conflict with the forces of the capitalist state, who want to keep us imprisoned. That is why we need to struggle - even if it looks like we have been defeated, we have temporarily carved out some free space for ourselves.

good action!!!

THAT'S DEFINITIVELY __BETTER__ THAN DOING NOTHING!!

You, those "voluntary slaves", should remember that each one by her/his own way won't do nothing, but that as many as we'll be, the more we'll able to do, so...

let's stop separating ourselves ;-)

good luck with local and global actions, and perhaps some people will go from madrid and other cities from the zone :D

Cheer up!

tonic

Dear Reader,
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is
not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse
bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it
is the scientific conclusion of the most widely-respected
geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world.
These are rational, professional, conservative individuals
who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as
global “Peak Oil.”
“Are We ‘Running Out’? I Thought There Was 40
Years of the Stuff Left”
Oil will not just “run out” because all oil production
follows a curve. This is true whether we’re talking about an
individual oil field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the curve,
increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The
peak of the curve coincides with the point at which 50
percent of the oil has been used. Once the peak is passed,
oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go
up.
In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this
means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil,
worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the
same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population
in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately double
1980) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than
it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil
will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant
margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant
economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.
The issue is not one of “running out” so much as it is
not having enough to keep our economy running. In this
regard, the results of Peak Oil for our civilization are
similar to the implications of dehydration for the human
body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a
200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because
water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the
man doesn’t need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight
before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as
10-15 pounds of water may be enough.
In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours
doesn’t have to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it
begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply
as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oildependent
economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
The effects of even a small drop in production can be
devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks,
shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price
of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in
California a few years ago with natural gas: a production
drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
The coming oil shocks won’t be so short-lived. They
represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once
the decline gets under way, production will drop by 3% at
least per year, every year.
That estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least
of which is Vice President Dick Cheney himself. In a 1999
speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney
stated: By some estimates, there will be an average of twopercent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years
ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural
decline in production from existing reserves.That means by
2010 we will need on the order of anadditional 50 million
barrels a day.
Cheney’s assesement is supported by the estimates of
numerous non-political, retired, and working scientists,
many of whom believe global oil production will peak and
go into terminal decline within the next five years.
Some geologists expect 2005 to be the last year of the
cheap-oil bonanza, while estimates coming out of the
oil industry indicate “a seemingly unbridgeable supplydemand
gap opening up after 2007,” which will lead to
major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts
beginning around 2008-2012.
The long-term implications of Peak Oil on your way of life
are nothing short of mind blowing. As we slide down the
downslope of the global oil production curve, we may find
ourselves slipping into what some scientists are calling a
“post-industrial stone age.”
Peak Oil is also called “Hubbert’s Peak,” named for the
Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert
accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would
peak in 1970. He also predicted global production would
peak in 1995, which it would have had the politically
created oil shocks of the 1970s not delayed the peak for
about 10-15 years.
“Big deal. If prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why
should I give a damn?”
Because petrochemicals are key components to much more
than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer
points out in his article entitled, “Eating Fossil Fuels,”
approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to
produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.
The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step
of modern production is fossil fuel and petrochemical
powered:
1. Farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;
2. Food transport and storage systems such as
refrigerators are manufactured in oil-powered
plants, distributed across oil-powered transportation
networks.
3. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported
5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is
consumed.
4. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia,
which is made from natural gas, which will peak about
10 years after oil peaks;
5. Pesticides are made from oil;
It’s not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely
dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water
distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered
by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.
In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern
medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics,
all computers and all high-tech devices.
Some specific examples may help illustrate the degree to
which our technological base is dependent on fossil fuels:
1. The construction of an average car consumes the
energy equivalent of approximately 27 barrels (1,142
gallons) of oil. Ultimately, the construction of a car will
consume an amount of fossil fuels equivalent to twice
the car’s final weight.
2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes
630 grams of fossil fuels. According to the American
Chemical Society, the construction of single 32
megabyte RAM chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels
in addition to 70.5 pounds of water.
3. The construction of the average desktop computer
consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels.
4. The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due
to the “purity and sophistication of materials (needed
for) a microchip, . . . the energy used in producing nine
or ten computers is enough to produce an automobile.”
When considering the role of oil in the production of
modern technology, remember that most alternative
systems of energy — including solar panels/solarnanotechnology,
windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel
production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on
sophisticated technology.
In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper,
and/or platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted,
transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery.
For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of
Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes: To produce a
ton of copper requires the equivalent of 17.8 barrels of
oil. The energy cost component of aluminum is twenty
times higher.
Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered,
extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.
Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such
as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech,
oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described
above.
In short, the so called “alternatives” to oil are actually
“derivatives” of oil. Without an abundant and reliable
supply of oil, we have no way of making enough
alternatives to the degree necessary to power the modern
world.
“Is the Modern Banking System Entirely Dependent
on Cheap Oil?”
The global financial system is entirely dependent on a
constantly increasing supply of oil. Since as explained
above, all modern economic activity from transportation
to food production to manufacturing is dependent
on oil supplies, money is really just a symbol for oil.
Commentator Robert Wise observes: money equals
energy. Real, liquid wealth represents usable energy. Real
cost reflects the energy cost of doing something. Nearly
all the work done in the world economy -- all the
manufacturing, construction, and transportation -- is
done with energy derived from oil. The actual work done
by human muscle power is miniscule by comparison. And,
the lion’s share of that fuel comes from oil and natural gas,
the primary sources of the world’s wealth.
As Dr. Colin Campbell writes in “The Financial
Consequences of Peak Oil,” the continued expansion
of this wealth is only possible so long as the oil supply
continues to grow: It is becoming evident that the financial
and investment community begins to accept the reality
of Peak Oil, which ends the First Half of the Age of Oil.
They accept that banks created capital during this epoch by
lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that
Tomorrow’s Expansion, fueled by cheap oil-based energy,
was adequate collateral or Today’s Debt.
The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth,
undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn
erodes the valuation of most companys quoted on Stock
Exchanges.
Consequently, a declining supply of oil must be
accompanied by either a declining supply of money or
by hyperinflation. In either case, the result for the global
banking system is the same: collapse.
This financial collapse will, in turn, further devastate our
ability to implement alternative systems of energy. Any
crash program to develop new sources of energy will
require a tremendous amount of capital, which is exactly
what will not be available once the global monetary system
has collapsed.
Start planning NOW. What you will do when the oil runs
out. There is no alternative.
PASS THIS ON