Treichel-Fischer Neg

Biopolitics K

Merging ecology and biopolitics into a police state of green governmentality employs coercive power-knowledge regimes to enforce the new normative code of ecology.
Luke 99 (Timothy, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Discourses of the Environment, p. 149-151)
Foucault is correct about the modern state. It is not ‘an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence’, because it has indeed evolved ‘as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integ¬rated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very specific patterns’ (Foucault 1982: 214—15). Producing discourses of ecological living, articulating designs of sustainable development, and pro¬pagating definitions of environmental literacy for contemporary individuals simply adds new twists to the ‘very specific patterns’ by which the state formation constitutes ‘a modern matrix of individualisation’ (ibid. 215). The regime of bio-power, in turn, operates through ethical systems of identity as much as it does in the policy machinations of governmental bureaus within any discretely bordered territory. Ecology merely echoes the effects from ‘one of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the eighteenth century’: namely, ‘the emergence of “population” as an economic and political problem’ (Foucault 1976: 25).Once demography emerges as a science of statist administration, its statistical attitudes can diffuse into the numerical surveillance of nature, or Earth and its non-human inhabitants, as well as the study of culture, or society and its human members.4 Government and now, most importantly, statist ecology preoccupy themselves with ‘the conduct of conduct’. Previously, the ethical concerns of family, community and nation guided how conduct was to be conducted; but at this juncture, environment emerges as a ground for normalizing individual behaviour. Environments are spaces under police supervision, expert management or technocratic control; hence, by taking environmentalistic agendas into the heart of state policy, one finds the ultimate meaning of the police state fulfilled. If the police, as they bind and observe space, are em¬powered to watch over religion, morals, health, supplies, roads, town buildings, public safety, liberal arts, trade, factories, labour supplies and the poor, then why not add ecology — or the inter¬actions of organisms and their surroundings to the police zones of the state? Here, the conduct of any person’s environmental con¬duct becomes the initial limit on others’ ecological enjoyments; so too does the conduct of the social body’s conduct require that the state always be an effective ‘environmental protection agency’. The ecological domain is the ultimate domain of being, with the most critical forms of life that states must now produce, protect and police in eliciting bio-power: it is the centre of their enviro¬discipline, eco-knowledge, geo-power (Luke 1994a, 1994b). Mobilizing biological power, then, accelerated after the 1970s, along with global fast capitalism. Ecology became that formalized disciplinary mode of paying systematic ‘attention to the processes of life.. . to invest life through and through’ (Foucault 1976: 139), in order to transform all living things into biological popu-lations, so to develop transnational commerce. The tremendous explosion of material prosperity on a global scale after 1973 would not have been possible without ecology to guide ‘the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjust¬ment of the phenomena of population to economic processes’ (ibid. 141). An anatomo-politics of all plants and animals emerges out of ecology, through which environmentalizing resource managerial¬ists acquire ‘the methods of power capable of optimising forces, aptitudes, and life in general without at the same time making them more difficult to govern’ (ibid.). To move another step beyond Foucault’s vision of human bio¬power, adjustment of the accumulation of environmentalized plants and animals to that of capital is necessary to check unsustainable growth. Yet, in becoming an essential sub-assembly for trans¬national economic development, ecological techniques of power rationalize conjoining ‘the growth of human groups to the expan¬sion of productive forces and the differential allocation of profit’, inasmuch as population ecology, environmental science and range management are now, in part, ‘the exercise of bio-power in its many forms and modes of application’ (ibid.). Indeed, a postmodern con¬dition is perhaps reached when the life of all species is now wagered in all of humanity’s economic and political strategies. Ecology emerges out of bio-history, circulating within ‘the space for move¬ment thus conquered, and broadening and organising that space, methods of power and knowledge’ needed for enviro-disciplinary interventions as the state ‘assumed responsibility for the life pro¬cesses and undertook to control and modify them’ (ibid. 101). This chapter has explored only one path through the order of things embedded in contemporary mainstream environmentalism. Ultimately, it suggests that we cannot adequately understand governmentality in present-day regimes, like the United States of America, without seeing how many of its tactics, calculi or institu¬tions assume ‘environmentalized’ modes of operation as part and parcel of ordinary practices of governance. Strategic Environmental Initiatives are now standard operating procedures. To preserve the political economy of high-technology production, many offices of the American state must function as ‘environmental protection agencies’, inasmuch as they continue to fuse a politics of national security with an economics of continual growth, to sustain exist¬ing industrial ecologies of mass consumption with the wise use of nature through private property rights. Conservationist ethics, resource managerialism and green rhetorics, then, congeal as an unusually cohesive power/knowledge formation, whose actions are an integral element of this order’s regime of normalization.

Only universal opposition to the state of exception can mount an effective challenge to the sovereign – any compromising position in the form of a particular identity maintains the sovereign’s power to constitute an idea of universal justice.
Brophy 9
Susan, Professor at York University, “Lawless Sovereignty: Challenging the State of Exception,” Social Legal Studies, 18(2)
What ensues is a form of the ‘boomerang effect’: the constituting power of justice, which was once fictitiously held by the state, lies not in the state’s juridical order but in the universalized externality represented in the act of dissent itself. This stands to undo, at least partially, the paradox of sovereignty by placing the limiting and limited version of state sovereignty alongside and in opposition to a form of sovereignty that lies extra-juridically, and therefore, outside state. In that case, state sovereignty cannot claim that there is nothing outside the law because, as this article has come to demonstrate, justice itself is outside the law and it thereby presides as the constituting force that substantiates the sovereign power of the (lawless) universalized standpoint. The references to colonialism have helped to demonstrate (a) the degree to which the state of exception gets normalized at the expense of life and justice, and (b) the importance of challenging the state of exception from outside the juridical order so as to expose the fictional quality of the relations between law and life from a universalized standpoint. In the capitalist colonial sense, acts of dissent against the state of exception can be similarly conceptualized as having to emerge from the universal externality that upholds lawlessness. There are numerous distinctive experiences of the state of exception as the limit-figure on life, which is a mode of governance that is highlyconducive to reckless capitalist growth (hence the term ‘capitalistcolonialism’), and has deep affinities with the ever-expanding ‘war on terror’. Whether these universalizable distinctions are experienced at the level of class, gender, race and/or ethnicity, they nonetheless stand to represent a shared externality that can never truly be ‘included’ in the juridical order of any given sovereign power. The compromised form of consent that characterizes these externalities in relation to the state of exception makes it such that the excluded, despite short-term attempts at inclusion, will always find their footing in the constituting power of universal justice. If the sovereign power of state lies in indistinction, meaning in the power of inclusive exclusion, then challenges to the state of exception must appeal to universalized distinctions, to that which is always external and must always be external to state insofar as universality itself can never be ‘included’ in the juridico-political operations of any given state. The state will always choose the state; it exists for itself, and the state of exception is an extreme example of the truth of this fate. 

Biopolitics requires the elimination of all possible threats by mobilizing the population to ensure the preservation of our way of life – the logical endpoint of this double sided thinking is extinction of entire populations.
Hoffman 7
Kasper, International Development Studies at Roskilde University, Militarised Bodies and Spirits of Resistance, http://diggy.ruc.dk:8080/bitstream/1800/2766/4/z2.pdf

In modern processes of government, the focus is on the fostering and promotion of life, though in certain circumstances this fundamental “security” of the population is experienced as threatened. In such circumstances the community calls upon its fundamental right to exist as such and thus evokes its right to deny the right to life of those who are seen as a threat to the life of that same population. This allows us to consider what might be thought of as the dark side of bio-politics (Dean 1999: 139). In Foucault’s account, bio-politics, as concrete political method of security, does not put an end to the practice of war; it provides it with renewed scope.This new scope allows the actual neutralization, or even elimination of life at the level of entire populations, or micro populations. It intensifies the killing, whether by “ethnic cleansing” that visits holocausts upon whole groups or by the mass slaughter of classes and groups in the name of the utopia to be achieved. Governance is now exercised at the level of life and of the population, and wars will be waged at that level on behalf of the “security” of each and all. This brings us to the heart of Foucault’s challenging thesis about bio-politics, namely that there is an intimate connection between the exercise of a life-administering power and the commission of genocide: “If genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers […] it is because power is located at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population” (Foucault 1976: 180, my translation).Thus, there seems to be a kind of inescapable connection between the power to foster life and the power to disqualify life which is characteristic of bio-power. The emergence of a bio-political racism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries can be approached as a trajectory in which the demand for a homogenous social space articulated by the norm appears to turn into a life necessity. Through the establishment of the norm, abnormality is inscribed upon individual “other” bodies, casting certain deviations as both internal dangers to the body politic and as inheritable legacies that threatens the well-being of race:On behalf of the existence of everyone entire populations are mobilised for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of the life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed…at stake is the biological existence of a population. (Foucault 1976: 180, my translation, emphasis)Bio-politics presides over the processes of birth, death, production and illness. It acts on the human species. Within this bio-political practice the sovereign right to kill appears in a new form; as an “excess” of biopower that does away with life in the name of securing it, and in its most radical form it is a means of introducing a fundamental distinction between those who must live and those who must die. It fragments the biological field and establishes a break within the biological continuum of human beings by defining a hierarchy of races, a set of subdivisions in which certain races are classified as “good”, fit and superior (Stoler 1995: 84). It therefore establishes a positive relation between the right to kill and the assurance of life. It posits that, the more you kill and let die, the more you will live. Thus, in modern biopolitical practice, war does more than reinforce one’s own kind by eliminating a racial adversary: it “regenerates” one’s own race (Stoler 1995: 56). It is essential to note that racism as a bio-political practice does not draw on a particular theory of race – it does not need to. Instead racism designates a much more general practice which introduces a rift in the biological continuum that is the human species between those who are worthy of citizenship and those who are not. Internal threats to the health and wellbeing of a social body come from those who were deemed to lack an ethics of “how to live” and thus the ability to govern themselves. It is worth remembering that the Nazi concentration camps housed not only Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, Bolsheviks and other inassimilable elements.

The alternative is to reject the affirmative to open a space for the whatever being

Refusal to adopt the affirmative paves the way for a new whatever being, bare life that accepts its conditions and uses its lack of affiliation to mount resistance in ways seen fit at the moment.  .  
Prozorov 9 (Sergie, Professor of Political Science at the University of Helenski“The Appropriation of Abandonment: Giorgio Agamben on the State of Nature and the Political”, February 15, International Studies Association, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313215_index.html

This vision of politics leads to the third aspect of Agamben’s strategy of  reappropriating the state of nature that concerns the abandonment of identity as a relevant  political category. Similarly to the approaches of Alain Badiou (2001) and Jean Luc  Nancy (1991), Agamben’s work is radically heterogeneous to ‘identity politics’, which  has become popular in critical circles in the aftermath of the Cold War. Starting from the  early 1980s, Agamben has repeatedly affirmed a vision of political community modelled  on his notion of the experimentum linguae. This ‘coming community’ is not grounded in  any presupposition of identity, norm or value but is rather entirely contained in its being-  in-language: ‘[T]here can be no true human community on the basis of a presupposition -  be it a nation, a language, or even the a priori of communication of which hermeneutics  speaks. A true community can only be a community that is not presupposed.’ (Agamben  1999a, 47) Agamben’s community strips itself of all identitarian predicates and historical  vocations and is finally able to dwell freely in its ‘whatever being’ or ‘being thus’ (1993,  1-4, 89-105). In Agamben’s concept of ‘being thus’, the anaphora ‘no longer refers back  to any meaning or any referent, [being an] absolute thus that does not presuppose  anything but is completely exposed’ (Agamben 1993, 93).  What is at stake here is the ‘appropriation of belonging itself’ while rejecting ‘any  condition of belonging’ (ibid., 87), which paves the way for a genuinely universal and  non-exclusive community. A ‘whatever’ life, stripped of all predicates, is certainly a bare  life, yet no longer in the sense of a degraded or destroyed positive form of life, but rather  in the sense of a form of life that affirms in every being solely its manner of being, its  inoperative and hence irreducibly potential being thus. ‘Being engendered from one’s  own manner of being is, in effect, the very definition of habit (this is why the Greeks  spoke of a second nature). That manner is ethical that does not befall us and does not  as a habitual form of life (second nature) from its very abandonment as bare life in the  generalized state of nature that has befallen it in the condition of nihilism while  renouncing any project of its re-foundation as bios on the basis of new principles, identities or norms. While the ‘natural’ being of bare life produced in the state of  exception is attained by the destruction of past identities, the ‘second, happier nature’  (ibid.) is engendered by the exposure of the being-in-common of singularities that no  identity can exhaust (see Edkins 2007).  The political stakes of this affirmation of whatever being are made explicit in  ‘Tiananmen’, the concluding fragment of The Coming Community (1993): ‘Whatever  singularity, which wants to appropriate belonging itself, its own being-in-language, and  thus rejects all identity and every condition of belonging, is the principal enemy of the  State. Wherever these singularities peacefully demonstrate their being in common, there  will be a Tiananmen, and sooner or later tanks will appear.’ (Ibid., 86) For Agamben,  what the state ‘cannot tolerate in any way’ is not any particular claim for identity, which  can always be recognised, but rather the possibility of human beings co-belonging in the  absence of any identity: ‘A being radically devoid of any representable identity would be  absolutely irrelevant to the State.’ (Ibid., 85) As opposed to the Hegelian emphasis on the  struggle for recognition as the quintessence of political praxis, the problem for Agamben  is not the recognition of every identity, but rather the affirmation of non-identity within  the identitarian structure of the state. Against the universalist political designs that aspire  to the attainment of universal recognition and thus remain tied to the statist logic,  Agamben suggests that identities must not be recognized but rather rendered inoperative  or deactivated, in the same manner as the pure experience of language deactivates  signification. It is this deactivation that conditions the possibility of a state of (second)  nature that would no longer be a state of war:  Every struggle among men is in fact a struggle for recognition and the peace that  follows such a struggle is only a convention instituting the signs and conditions of  mutual, precarious recognition. Such a peace is only and always a peace amongst  states and of the law, a fiction of the recognition of an identity in language, which  comes from war and will end in war. Not the appeal to guaranteed signs or images  but the fact that we cannot recognise ourselves in any sign or  that is peace  […] in non-recognition. Peace is the perfectly empty sky of humanity; it is the  display of non-appearance as the only homeland of man. (Agamben 1995, 82)  The idea of peace as constituted by non-recognition marks the most extreme  departure of Agamben from the Hobbesian logic of the political and the contractarian  tradition more generally (Agamben 1998, 181). If every peace ensuing from a  ‘convention’ or covenant that institutes and secures the conditions for mutual recognition  is always precarious and bound to end in the same war (the state of exception) from  which it allegedly emerged (the state of nature), then the solution to the problem of war  consists not in establishing more effective, just or inclusive covenants, but in deactivating  the very identities whose recognition these covenants attempt to ensure. Agamben’s  vision of a reappropriated state of nature may thus be described as a form of life that has  overcome its separations, relieved itself of all historical tasks and dispensed with all  identitarian predicates in favour of a universal and non-exclusive whatever being, a life  abandoned to itself and for this reason capable of happiness.

Social movements are necessary to solve multiple extinction scenarios
Sloboda 06(“Saving Us And The Planet” June 19, 2006 John Sloboda is executive director of the Oxford Research Group (ORG), http://www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opinion/saving-us-and-planet)

This is the stark conclusion of a report from the Oxford Research Group (ORG), Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, published on 12 June 2006. The report—co-written by the ORG's research officer Chris Abbott, author of the ORG's international security monthly briefing (and openDemocracy columnist) Paul Rogers, and myself—identifies four main threats to security in the next century and outlines a plan of action. The four threats are:      * climate change     * competition over resources     * marginalization of the "majority world"     * global militarization.  If these growing threats are not halted within the next few years, the world could pass a tipping-point which would catapult it into a period of intense and unprecedented conflict.  A brief look at each of the threats is enough to suggest the scale of peril they present.  First, climate change will cause rising ocean levels, placing migratory pressures on millions of the world's most vulnerable people living on coastal and river delta areas. It will also alter rainfall patterns, particularly over the tropics, creating drought and food shortages. Hurricane Katrina gave a small foretaste of much worse to come. Second, the world's oil reserves are depleting, and there are severe water shortages in many parts of the world. Yet the major powers act as if these resources are unlimited: aggressively competing for their control and expanding their consumption, rather than seeking alternatives. Nuclear power is promoted as a magic wand, rather than a growing source of deadly materials for those states and terrorist groups wishing to manufacture nuclear weapons.  Third, disparities of wealth and power are growing deeper, both within countries and between different regions of the world. This fuels the discontent and marginalization which feeds political violence. Yet current trade and aid arrangements do little to address global economic inequities.  Fourth, far from "keeping the peace" the unceasing growth in global military expenditure is stoking fresh conflicts. New weapons, such as "mini-nukes," are destabilizing current arms-control regimes such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), and place more deadly capabilities within the reach of terrorists. The civilian deaths caused by the United States and the United Kingdom in Afghanistan and Iraq have been a propaganda gift to al-Qaida.  The leaders of the two states, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, may have made a reluctant admission of tactical errors in Iraq, but there is no fundamental review of the effectiveness of their current military strategy. Nor are there serious efforts to curb or decrease military expenditure by any major power; the record of Chinese arms sales in stoking conflicts in Sudan, Burma, and Nepal is but one example of how the opposite has been happening.  These four trends, individually and when reinforcing each other in combination, put the world on course for catastrophe.  It's up to us There is, however, one big hope. That hope lies in the people of the world who are waking up to this impending disaster, and the pressure that only they can place on governments. The spread of education coupled with increasing global communication means that more and more people see, with greater clarity, the dire consequences of our actions and the need for alternatives. This new global awareness has thrown up three powerful social movements, which have united people across the world:      * the environmental movement     * the global justice movement     * the peace movement.  Until now, these movements have operated relatively separately, and with differing degrees of purchase on the behavior of political and economic elites. Now is the time to recognize that they are three indispensable pillars of a broad unified movement for global survival. No one movement can succeed without the others.  We cannot achieve disarmament without climate control. We cannot have clean water for everyone without trade justice. We cannot eliminate terrorism without developing alternatives to oil. All of these linkages are components of a "sustainable security" approach to the world's problems.  The main feature of this approach is that it does not attempt to unilaterally control threats through the use of force ("attack the symptoms"), but rather aims to cooperatively resolve the root causes of those threats using the most effective means available ("cure the disease"). The approach is preventative, in that it addresses the likely causes of conflict and instability well before the ill effects are felt, rather than waiting until the crisis is underway and then attempting to control the situation, at which point it is often too late.  Is this achievable? Not if we simply wait for governments to act. They are too focused on their own narrow national and economic interests. Community groups, faith groups, NGOs, and many other elements of civil society (including journalists) will need to coordinate their efforts to convince governments that this new approach is practical and effective and is the only real way to ensure security.  We citizens of the first decade of the 21st century have both an awesome responsibility and an unprecedented power to act together. What we decide in the next five to 10 years could change the future of this planet more profoundly than any other period in recent history. The stakes have never been higher.

(VIDEO)

The video just shown is a Representation of what is happening in the round. The role of the ballot is that whoever forces elites to recognize NEETs the best should win.  We will use our magic to force that recognition.

Anime creates politics of imperceptibility by giving viewers a pleasure able experience
Lien 2007 THE PLEASURE AND POLITICS OF VIEWING JAPANESE ANIME P123-124
thispolitics of imperceptibility may not have a coherent and critical goal or agenda (thus it may not be sufficient to achieve a goal-oriented politics), it benefits us because ofits open-ended practices. These open-ended practices are usually playful, active, creative, and without boundaries between the oppressed and the oppressing. McWhortor (1999) suggests that pleasure enables creative opposition and active resistance. Pleasure requires the viewing subject’s active engagement with images to produce pleasure.Taking pleasure instead of desire as a central issue shifts the focal point from viewer’s passive acceptance of images to the creative function of viewing practices. Producing pleasure requires the subject’s “will”—energy and self-esteem. It empowers subjects to produce meaning of and for the self, and it may eventually result in politically active resistance of the regulatory power and normative discourses. 

Personal reality not true reality is what matters to people
Lien 2007 THE PLEASURE AND POLITICS OF VIEWING JAPANESE ANIME P137-138

Ideological critiques may not be able to effectively generate resistance to regulatory power in doing. Žižek (1989) calls today’s society “post-ideological” where people are no longer blinded in participating in their own oppression, but have a critical distance between what they know and what they do (p. 33). He writes, People no longer believe in ideological truth; they do not take ideological propositions seriously. The fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself. (p. 33) ForŽižek, in our postmodern time, people know well that their actions follow a false consciousness, but still, they are doing these actions. Žižek’s account of ideology shifts the focus from what we know to what we do, to the persistence of our actions regardless of whether we know or not. Žižek argues that ideological constructions are less about whether we have critical awareness of the imposed beliefs and values, but more about how our actions persistently embody these beliefs and values.

Tiger mask movement proves anime based social movements empirically solve
Animenewsnetwork 1/11 http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-01-12/eva-haruhi-heroes-donate-to-tiger-mask-movement
The Tiger Mask movement gained even more momentum as Japaneseorphanages and other facilities reported over 290 donations sinceChristmas. As of Wednesday, thegifts includeover 350 backpacks and a total of 10 million yen (about US$120,000) in cash. Not only were there gifts under the name of the manga/anime pro wrestler Tiger Mask, but also other cultural icons:
Takasaki, Gunma: On Monday, an anonymous woman left the Kibōkan facility a pre-paid Tosho card worth 30,000 yen (about US$360). Then, on Tuesday, the Kibōkan received 60,000 yen (US$720) in cash in the mail under the name of "ReiAyanami" — the character from the Evangelion animefranchise. The enclosed letter read, "I'm a student so I can't give much, but here is a belated New Year's gift."
• Nasushiobara, Tochigi: A man brought four backpacks to the prefecture's northern child guidance center at around 2:20 p.m. on Wednesday. According to the man, a male stranger asked him to bring the backpacks over from the parking lot of a nearby supermarket. The accompanying letter was signed "RyōjiKaji" — another Evangelion character
Matsusaka, Mie: The municipal offices discovered six dozen pencils for girls, Minnie Mouse and Hello Kittyerasers, memo pads, writing boards, and letter sets on its doorstep on Wednesday morning. Inside a Pokémonpaper bag was a letter signed by HaruhiSuzumiya of the light novels and anime franchise of the same name: "I don't use these anymore, so please use them for children in need."
Nagoya, Aichi: Authorities received stationery from Kamen Rider, the titular characters of the popular live-action special-effects franchise.
• Hirosaki, Aomori: Authorities received three bicycles from "Ultraman's father." Ultraman is the star of Tsuburaya Productions' live-action (and anime) franchise about transforming super heroes who protect Earth.
• Sendai, Miyagi: The authorities received backpacks from "Date Masamune." Date is not only the famous real-life samurai warlord who made Sendai's Aoba Castle his base of operations, but he also stars in the Sengoku Basara game and anime franchise.
• Tokushima, Tokushima: The authorities received pastries and stationery from Hyūma Hoshi — the title character of the classic baseball manga and animeKyojin no Hoshi.
• Aomori, Aomori: Authorities received 1 million yen (US$12,000) under the name of the Disney characterStitch!.
Saitama, Saitama: The prefecture's southern child guidance center received stationery sets from ShinosukeNohara — the title kindergartner of the manga and anime Crayon Shin-chan. Usui, the late creator of Crayon Shin-chan, lived in Saitama Prefecture and based the stories' setting on his own Kasukabe City
Sources: Sports Nippon, Sankei News (link 2),Zakzak, Nikkan Sports
Update: • Miyazaki, Miyazaki: Gift-wrapped stationery and a clock were left at the Caritas no En orphanage on Wednesday morning. A note from the anime robot "Tetsujin 28-gō" (Gigantor) said, "I feel this isn't much, but please accept these.