Rev. Billy: More thoughts on G20

By Rev. Billy Talen, Green Party candidate for mayor, NYC. h/t On The Wilder Side.

We’re flying home for a labor rally in front of Goldman Sachs as G-20 continues Friday afternoon. The last 24 hours in Pittsburgh leave me with a shudder. The miles of concrete and steel fencing, and the thousands of Robo-Cop imitators have come into all of us. We deal with the lock-down in Pittsburgh with a mix of awe and comedy. And sadness: President Obama’s turn away from the leadership of peace has accelerated in these last days. He makes his graceful entrances, but he has disappeared into his 20 nations, throwing up hard walls as he retreats.

Peace will remain an impotent Hallmark Card if we wait for this recent peace candidate to emerge from his closed meetings with bankers and generals. We can only look to ourselves. Peace is still there, a solid thing, still the hope for an economic alternative to the globalized fiasco that the rich nations want to revive. It is the living and breathing idea of a sustainable economy.

The leaders of these 20 nations have their fashionable declarations for “green jobs” – on a slow news day, that is. No corporation can openly ask what an earth-based economy would mean for their war products and fossil-fuel intense supply lines. But let’s ask ourselves the same question. Does our eco-community often mention the implications for peace in our green future hopes? Do we envision solar and wind powered war? I hope not. The point is that we should be exploring a peaceful future as energetically as the G-20 leaders game the world with their latest crisis.

And so the almost comic militarization of Pittsburgh gives us a sad picture of Obama’s decision to present himself as a strong President. If I’m putting a capital “P” on President, let me honor the word Peace in like manner. Yes, Peace could have been re-affirmed this week without seeming to be soft on Iran, but then that would have been leadership.

The answer to the familiar riddle of how to curb violence in others while putting forth Peace yourself: Peace exists in all of us. The sustainable economy of Peace is in all of us. We are that leader. We are that source. The images and facts and language of Peace must come from each of us with such force that the concrete and bullets and posturing in power suits will dissolve before the rise of the peoples’ common sense. We don’t want to kill one another. Now – that would be a Peace Summit!

33 thoughts on “Rev. Billy: More thoughts on G20

  1. Robert Milnes

    Good thoughts and words, Reverend. I like the idea of capitalizing the word Peace. Like we capitalize President or Department of Defense (=War Deaprtment). But all is for naught, kind sir. You are going to lose. That is I believe unless you pursue the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy.

  2. Michael Cavlan

    I just found out that a friend of mine got arrested at the G20 protests.

    Melissa Hill, who is running for City Council, under the banner of Civil Disobedience.

    Paulie, you would like her. She is a Ron Paul, semi anarchist Libertarian.

    She is solid and the salt of the earth.

    She was released today.

  3. Robert Milnes

    Michael Cavlan, I beg your pardon. It has been established here at IPR (= The World According to Paulie) after conclusion last year by Tom K., that Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a dixiecrat conservative. He is, however, a Libertarian i.e. has purchased a lifetime membership in the Libertarian Party. & I think even Paulie would agree that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. & I understand that you are not saying Ron Paul is an anarchist, but that your friend is. “Melissa Hill, who is running for City Council…”, therefore, is she running as a Republican or a Libertarian or both? Just curious-about how this whole Ron Paul 35 million dollar counterrevolution is playing out. He is listed on politics1.com as a possible candidate. Keep in mind- democrats and republicans are REACTIONARIES. The big question is are libertarians reactionaries also?

  4. Robert Milnes

    Michael Cavlan, put in other words: were there any democrats or republicans protesting in Pittsburgh? Were there any libertarians? At least one according to you-your friend.

  5. paulie Post author

    mdh was protesting in Pittsburgh. He is chair of LPWV.

    Ron Paul is a libertarian, but not an anarchist.
    Michael said Melissa is close to anarchist, not actually anarchist.

    IPR is not and never has been the world according to me.

  6. Robert Milnes

    Paulie, yes, I know mdh was protesting in Pittsburgh. It was a rhetorical question to make a point.
    Tom K. concluded Ron Paul is not a libertarian. & I agree. Rather he is a dixiecrat conservative. Unless you disagree with TOM & ME. Or, you consider a dixiecrat conservative a libertarian under some sort of deference to dinosaur Ron Paul counterrevolutionary Bann Bobb Barr/W.A.R. big tent bozo umbrella.
    The actual quote is: “Paulie, you would like her. She is a Ron Paul, semi anarchist Libertarian.” Ron Paul IS a Libertarian-a lifetime member of the LP. But not a libertarian.
    I would be flabberghasted & apologetic if Ron Paul had shown up to Pittsburgh. Also Bann Bobb Barr and W.A.R. Think about it. Could you imagine any of these three in Pittsburgh? Could you imagine you, me or Tom in Pittsburgh?

  7. paulie Post author

    I could imagine being in Pittsburgh, and almost went. Actually, by coincidence I missed a greyhound connection in Columbus and was rerouted through Pittsburgh – the station was moved out to a makeshift station in McKeesport, but I had to continue to my destination.

    I disagree with Tom if he claims that Ron Paul is not a small l libertarian.

  8. Robert Milnes

    Well unless I’m mistaken he spelled it out in no uncertain terms last year on his blog. He & I & Prof Phillies were on his shit like flies. Didn’t seem to make much of a difference though.

  9. Robert Milnes

    Paulie, the problem is the fine line between right libertarian & those others, dixiecrat conservatives, paleos etc is right at LP & CP. This is the divider between reactionary(GOP) & counterrevolutionary (CP) & revolutionary/progressive (LP). That’s why it is so important.

  10. John Famularo

    Why does the LNC let so many non-libertarians vote as delegates in the national conventions?

  11. Robert Milnes

    Ron Paul baseball: He is a member of the GOP-strike one. He plays coochy coo & kissy face with CPAC-strike 2. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin-strike 3. Not a libertarian. You are OUT!

  12. Robert Milnes

    Dave Schwab, very perceptive of you to conclude on your own that Ron Paul is not a (l)libertarian. You have stepped into a major faux pas by Paulie. He has been a longtime detractor of mine. Now he has publicly stated a belief that both Tom K & I agree in the contrary. Tom concluded in his blog that Ron Paul is not a libertarian and I agreed. That was last year, before the 35 million or at least during. Meanwhile most of the REAL Libertarian candidates are having fundraising problems including me and Tom’s guy Steve Kubby. “…but at least he didn’t endorse Barr.” True. But actually further proof he is not a Libertarian either. Endorsing Barr would have been the least he could do. ‘At least Baldwin isn’t a warmonger.” True. But most of the rest of the CP platform is counterrevolutionary. Not a good balance.

  13. Robert Milnes

    I believe a whole friggin war-the U.S. Civil War was fought over this shit. I DEEPLY resent that war & this re-emergence of this nonsense. WE MUST NEVER AGAIN SUPPORT RON PAUL.

  14. paulie Post author

    lol, you do what you want, I supported Ron Paul and will again. I was not wild about Barr, but he is not a warmonger. True, he was years ago, but not now.

    No faux pas, Ron Paul is clearly libertarian, although not on every single issue. He also did a lot better at getting support from the left than the LP does, so I have to give him credit.

    I am sure Ron Paul is broken up that Milnes does not support him tho, rofl.

  15. Robert Milnes

    Ron Paul is clearly NOT a libertarian. Dixiecrat conservative, theocratic Constitutionalist etc. I’m trying to politely describe the skinny little shit.

  16. HumbleTravis

    Teddy Roosevelt supported:
    antitrust laws, imperialism, federal land grabs, J.P. Morgan business interests, broad reading of the commerce clause etc. i.e.- more government

    Ron Paul supports:
    free markets, non-interventionism, competition in currency, private property, – i.e. less government

    Tell me Mr. Milnes, which one is more libertarian?

  17. Dave Schwab

    “I was not wild about Barr, but he is not a warmonger. True, he was years ago, but not now.”

    Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he changed his tune because he wanted to try on a new party. I have no way of knowing. But Barr’s record shows that when it really counted, he supported a terribly destructive, anti-liberty, pro-war agenda.

    “Ron Paul is clearly libertarian, although not on every single issue.”

    I guess it’s common for libertarians to accept as one of their own a person who advocates liberty for his own kind, but not certain others, be they women, drug users, political prisoners, people of other nations, or whoever. (In the case of Ron Paul, I respect many of his stands, but not his reactionary views on women’s rights). IMHO, that is the source of a real credibility problem for the LP, but I’ll let you all work that one out for yourselves.

  18. Mike

    He believes abortion is murder, that does not mean he opposes womens rights. I think most libertarians agree that we can have legitimate differences on that issue.

    However, his immigration views are reactionary and just plain wrong, that is true.

    And he should have never allowed his name to be used for racist newsletters. I do not believe he did not know, they came out for years and years.

  19. George

    Barr has a bad record on many issues in Congress, but does that mean he is never allowed to change his mind?

  20. Dave Schwab

    “He believes abortion is murder, that does not mean he opposes womens rights.”

    I don’t care what he believes; does he support criminalizing abortion or not?

    “However, his immigration views are reactionary and just plain wrong, that is true. ”

    Seems like a lot of libertarian heroes these days support liberty for healthy, wealthy white males, and jack diddly for everyone else. Just sayin.

    “Barr has a bad record on many issues in Congress, but does that mean he is never allowed to change his mind?”

    He is certainly allowed to change his mind. I just wouldn’t support a candidate who says the right things when he has no power, and does the wrong things when he has power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *