Shortly after the 2004 "election" I proposed at DU, Malloy, and I think a couple of other places that the people who want to see DK be president get together and build a machine to get his message out in prep for 2008.

Deathly silence. Except, ironically, at DK's place where I actually got punished for trying to get something going for him (I can't help but think there's a message in that).

So my question for you all is: Why would people who claim to passionately want some result be unwilling to lift a finger to get the result? What're the dynamics of that disconnect? Does that have a deeper message of some kind for our ability to create change?

Shortly after the 2004 "election" I proposed at DU, Malloy, and I think a couple of other places that the people who want to see DK be president get together and build a machine to get his message out in prep for 2008.

Deathly silence. Except, ironically, at DK's place where I actually got punished for trying to get something going for him (I can't help but think there's a message in that).

So my question for you all is: Why would people who claim to passionately want some result be unwilling to lift a finger to get the result? What're the dynamics of that disconnect? Does that have a deeper message of some kind for our ability to create change?
They are confused, intimidated and resigned. They have no sense of what is possible, no abiloty to connect theory with reality, no confidence that anything can be done, and they are not willing to face or admit any of that.

Here is how you connect theory with reality -


We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.

“You realise, I presume,” he said insolently, “that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making your-selves the tools of murderers and traitors?”

“Now brother,”answered the soldier earnestly, “you don’t understand. There are two classes, don’t you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We -”

“Oh, I know that silly talk!” broke in the student rudely. “A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don’t understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots.” The crowd laughed. “I’m a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn’t Socialism you are fighting for. It’s just plain pro-German anarchy!”

“Oh, yes, I know,” answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. “You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me -”

“I suppose,” interrupted the other contemptuously, “that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?”

“Yes, I do,” answered the soldier, suffering.

“Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?”

“Well, I don’t know much about that,” answered the soldier stubbornly, “but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat -”

“You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing ‘God Save the Tsar!’ My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn’t you ever hear of me?”

“I’m sorry to say I never did,” answered the soldier with humility. “But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero.”

“I am,” said the student with conviction. “And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?”

The soldier scratched his head. “I can’t account for it at all,” he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. “To me it seems perfectly simple - but then, I’m not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - ”

“There you go again with your silly formula!” cried the student.

“ - only two classes,” went on the soldier, doggedly.

“And whoever isn’t on one side is on the other…”

Most of the activists are like the rude, contemptuous and insolent young student with a supercilious expression, leading the attack.

Thanks to anaxarchos for finding this excerpt from John Reed's "Ten Days That Shook the World."

It's a beautiful passage for sure, for sure.

So how many activists do we have and how many soldiers? Where do we find the friggin soldiers? Should we even call the activists by that term--aren't they really talkivists? Where do we find actual activists, the kind who aren't also members of Concerned Couch Potatoes of America? What should we expect of people claiming to be activists?

It's a beautiful passage for sure, for sure.

So how many activists do we have and how many soldiers? Where do we find the friggin soldiers? Should we even call the activists by that term--aren't they really talkivists? Where do we find actual activists, the kind who aren't also members of Concerned Couch Potatoes of America? What should we expect of people claiming to be activists?
Soldiers are no problem.

Not too many activists are needed. We now have none, for all practical purposes. Ten would be a good start. If there were ten with their heads screwed in straight that would set an example and grow. The biggest barrier to that is the fact that all of those with the organizational, analytical and verbal skills needed are so thoroughly co-opted into shilling for the upper class.

The couch potato "do something!" concern is not anything to worry about, I don't think.

A relatively small percentage of the population thinks that apathy and ignorance are the problems. Those are problems for a few of us, or we think they are, but we are applying an inappropriate set of criteria to the issue and projecting our own (very rare) viewpoint onto the population in general.

Apathy - I never see it except among a few intellectuals and in a few select settings. Unfortunately they are all talking to each other and traveling in the same circles, so they think the whole world is struggling with apathy.

Ignorance - what does anyone need to know beyond "there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - and whoever isn’t on one side is on the other…”

Intellectuals are fascinated with this self-indulgent journey of discovery and enlightenment that they are on. "I used to think that America could do no wrong, but I am overcoming that brainwashing and really starting to pursue the truth." Yawn.

They are also fascinated with the challenge of motivation - "come on people, let's all get real enthusiastic about this homecoming float project, and really show some school spirit! I think Muffie will be homecoming queen, and she is going to give a speech about world peace! We can really make a difference if we just show some motivation! You can make fun of it if you want, but at least some of us are doing something!"

It's a beautiful passage for sure, for sure.

So how many activists do we have and how many soldiers? Where do we find the friggin soldiers? Should we even call the activists by that term--aren't they really talkivists? Where do we find actual activists, the kind who aren't also members of Concerned Couch Potatoes of America? What should we expect of people claiming to be activists?
Soldiers are no problem.

Not too many activists are needed. We now have none, for all practical purposes. Ten would be a good start. If there were ten with their heads screwed in straight that would set an example and grow. The biggest barrier to that is the fact that all of those with the organizational, analytical and verbal skills needed are so thoroughly co-opted into shilling for the upper class.

The couch potato "do something!" concern is not anything to worry about, I don't think.

A relatively small percentage of the population thinks that apathy and ignorance are the problems. Those are problems for a few of us, or we think they are, but we are applying an inappropriate set of criteria to the issue and projecting our own (very rare) viewpoint onto the population in general.

Apathy - I never see it except among a few intellectuals and in a few select settings. Unfortunately they are all talking to each other and traveling in the same circles, so they think the whole world is struggling with apathy.

Ignorance - what does anyone need to know beyond "there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - and whoever isn’t on one side is on the other…”

Intellectuals are fascinated with this self-indulgent journey of discovery and enlightenment that they are on. "I used to think that America could do no wrong, but I am overcoming that brainwashing and really starting to pursue the truth." Yawn.

They are also fascinated with the challenge of motivation - "come on people, let's all get real enthusiastic about this homecoming float project, and really show some school spirit! I think Muffie will be homecoming queen, and she is going to give a speech about world peace! We can really make a difference if we just show some motivation! You can make fun of it if you want, but at least some of us are doing something!"

Anax knows this better than I, but most of those things - floats, parades, pep rallys, are just hare-brained schemes to foster social activity. If this is all going to devolve into one big Social, I imagine it will become so nauseautingly sacchrine we'll all bail on it. So it should be self-policing in that regard.

He wasn't going to go because he wanted to stay in grad school and continue his life.

So I went back to work on my thesis---for about three minutes. Then I bagan to pace the floor and think about this thing. The Germans had Hitler and the possibility of developing an atomic bomb was obvious, and the possibility that they would develop it before we did was very much of a fright. So I decided to go to the meeting at three o'clock.

By four oçlock I already had a desk in a room and was trying to calculate....

He mentions that during the war all physical research stopped, careers were put on hold, students dropped out, everything went into a focused effort to solve the problems and win the war. People understood almost without discussion that unless the Nazis were defeated, nothing else would matter because a Nazi victory would alter life beyond recognition for everyone.

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?

He wasn't going to go because he wanted to stay in grad school and continue his life.

So I went back to work on my thesis---for about three minutes. Then I bagan to pace the floor and think about this thing. The Germans had Hitler and the possibility of developing an atomic bomb was obvious, and the possibility that they would develop it before we did was very much of a fright. So I decided to go to the meeting at three o'clock.

By four oçlock I already had a desk in a room and was trying to calculate....

He mentions that during the war all physical research stopped, careers were put on hold, students dropped out, everything went into a focused effort to solve the problems and win the war. People understood almost without discussion that unless the Nazis were defeated, nothing else would matter because a Nazi victory would alter life beyond recognition for everyone.

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?

You've GOT to be shitting me.

I swear to God I was just reading this before I read your post:


An example of synchronicity is recounted by the great physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988) [In his quasi-autobiographical book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!"], who is the kind of person who clearly and self-consciously lived in a mundane of world of science and nothing else. During World War II Feynman's first wife, Arlene, died of tuberculosis. She had been living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, while Feynman was working on the atomic bomb, not far away, at Los Alamos. Feynman was present when she died. Later he noticed that the clock by her bed, a rare digital clock (for that era) which had been a special gift from him, had stopped at the precise moment, according to the the death certificate, that she had died. That coincidence impressed him; but he comforted himself, after a fashion, by recalling that the nurse had moved the clock to check the time of death, which could have stopped its sensitive works. For the rest of his life he never for a moment doubted that the clock had stopped either from a very mundane cause or by nothing more than an extraordinary coincidence. To be sure, it was a coincidence--but truly a meaningful coincidence. Feynman's universe did not contain Jung's category for him to speak about it.


Fucking weird, huh?

http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm

:)

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?
I'll say. I'm ready.

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?
I'll say. I'm ready.
Me too. But are you and I good enough that we can solve the problem all by ourselves?

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?
I'll say. I'm ready.
Me too. But are you and I good enough that we can solve the problem all by ourselves?
Yes.

Why aren't we even talking about a similar level of effort, let alone making it?
I'll say. I'm ready.
Me too. But are you and I good enough that we can solve the problem all by ourselves?
Yes.
:shock:

:shock:
Two is all it takes, yes. There is a widespread idea that “we know what we want, so let's do it.” I don't think that is so. I don't think there is agreement as to where we are headed. I think that is the problem. If there were agreement, things would naturally and effortlessly translate into action. That is what I was trying to get to on that Kucinich peace thread. You can't advocate when peace when there is no shared definition of what peace is, no shared reality of any kind. I think the confusion as to reality and as to goals is caused by people who don't want us to have clarity or agreement about that, because they want to slip their own goals into the mix undetected.

Now, as to the seemingly absurd “two is all it takes” statement. If we turn things around backwards, and reject the obviously false analysis that says “we all know what we want, now it is just a matter of how to do it” and start from the other end of the equation, the immense value of two is understandable. The process needs to start with a shared and agreed upon view of reality expressed in such a way that millions can understand it - clarity about existing conditions, in other words, and a way to communicate that. From that comes an urgency to remedy conditions. Since we see a lack of urgency among the activists, the assumption then is that they lack clarity about conditions.

Kid, newswolf, PPLE and others are bringing reality into the mix, against much resistance at other sites. Not theory, not methods – conditions, existing conditions, from a very personal view. That is the next step. After getting clarity about conditions, those conditions need to be linked to people's personal experience to mean anything. There is much resistance to that among activists, because they are not personally hurting. . Concepts like oppression and justice are things they read about in books or saw in a movie - “Hallmark greeting card sentiments” or “amusing” or “magic charms” as our peacenik friend at the K board said.

Everyone in the country, practically, is in a crisis of being a day late and a dollar short. This is universal -everyone is a potential recruit. We know that people are intentionally being placed and held in a condition of a day late and a dollar short. The game is rigged. That situation – and people's pain and anxiety over that – must be the raw material from which a movement is built. Without that, nothing can happen. With it, we can change the world.

Yet that discussion is suppressed and resisted. Kid says his girlfriends are driving him nuts, and we respond by calling that sexist. We miss the opportunity to transform it into grist for the political mill. At DU and PI, the successful and clever ones will dismiss talk of personal misery - “OK if we are done with the pity party here, let's move forward and get on with it.. We can't spend all of our time listening to your little personal problems.” The person is presumed to be defective, in need of re-education or therapy. Their experiences are invalidated. Then the “helpful” ones chime in with advice - “I take a walk (meditate, read a certain book, listen to music, get laid, garden) when I need to get centered.” The person is told, in essence, that they don't matter, that their observations are irrelevant or wrong, that no one is interested, and that their problems are their own fault.

Then and only then, once we have opened the way for people to discuss their personal misery, and to connect that to the existing social conditions, does political theory play any role. Even then, theory is only useful for guiding the discussion, not for converting people to new belief systems or dogmas. That enables us to keep making the connections – personal misery, an accurate and shared view of reality, and sense of kinship and camaraderie as that is communicated back and forth. Solidarity is built long before theory comes into play, jet alone organization or action. Creating this solidarity is in and of itself action, of course, no matter what the “do something!” crowd says.

The theory is that the personal is political, and there are the haves and there are the have-nots and the game is rigged.

When that discussion gets shut down – and it always does – of course people are then unmotivated and discouraged and wander off. Of what meaning or value does the discussion have for them anymore? Politics is apparently only for the well adjusted, successful, and for those obsessed with current events and political theories. It isn't something that involves them, has any relevancy to their personal lives, that has connection to the reality they are observing, or even something that they are made to feel welcome to participate in.

:shock:
Two is all it takes, yes. There is a widespread idea that “we know what we want, so let's do it.” I don't think that is so. I don't think there is agreement as to where we are headed. I think that is the problem. If there were agreement, things would naturally and effortlessly translate into action. That is what I was trying to get to on that Kucinich peace thread. You can't advocate when peace when there is no shared definition of what peace is, no shared reality of any kind. I think the confusion as to reality and as to goals is caused by people who don't want us to have clarity or agreement about that, because they want to slip their own goals into the mix undetected.


There are ALOT of people who are discouraged like this and it goes back to the Boomers who saw all of their idealism and zeal turned into a joke and villified in the 70s. They gave up. They told the path of least resistance which is one of two things:

1. Republicans bad, Democrats better
2. Hey, Bush (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I) is the one who wants me to keep my money

and they passed that aesthetic on to their kids. Most people will begrudgingly tell you (depending on what side of the aisle they put themselves on) that they see Greenpeace as The Defender Of The Environment, the NRA as The Defender of Guns, the ACLU as The Defender of Civil Liberties and so on. A very subdivided, loosely knit (if connected at all) group of organizations who rarely work in concert.

So, thats part of the problem here. I think Mike has correctly ID'd the why in why they gave up which is insightful in figuring out how to broach this idea with them without a heavy dose of apathy outside of fulfilling their civic duty by voting and 'staying up on the issues'

Put it this way. A hippe chick from the 60s says she never went to any of the Communist Party meetings of her friends bc that stuff was too radical for her. But she wishes we had more politicians today in the mold of Truman, and Humphrey -- for the people! They won't let us vote for who we want is what she said.

Think about that - someone very much resistant to anything she considers 'radical' yet look at what she endorses and doesn't see as radical at all.

Once we have a hotbed of grievance going, and an atmosphere that is not smashing people down, atomizing them, turning them back into isolated individual units who have no one but themselves to blame, the work of connecting those grievances to the national social situation starts. This doesn't need to be fine tuned - God spare us from those perfect little Green platforms! - and endlessly argued about. Accept people the way they are, and start from where they are. We want to change society, not improve people. Leave that whole business of enlightenment and self-improvement to the Greens and the religious people.

Next comes organization and action. Actually, all four will be happening at the same time – new people brought into the circle, establishing communication, roughing out consensus on a framework of political theory and on principles and ideals, organization and action.

The first thing to organize and to take action on is expanding the circle and spreading the word. In other words, causing yet more “hot air.”

From there we set up meetings, send out rabble rousing pamphlets, infiltrate organizations, coordinate with organizations (unions, immigrant rights groups, advocates for the poor, minority organizations – NOT upscale liberal activist groups, as they will aggressively destroy what we are trying to build.)

This will work. We don't need to micro-manage the thing, we don't need to have it all planned out, we don't need to do it all, it doesn't need to be perfect. Think momentum, not perfection. Our job is to rabble rouse, and to steer the rabble to think in terms of class struggle. The more people involved in planning, etc, the more they will own it. We need to break through that “tell me what to do, oh wise one” paralysis. Blast through the suppression and watch how smart, motivated and interested people will become.

Yet that discussion is suppressed and resisted. Kid says his girlfriends are driving him nuts, and we respond by calling that sexist. We miss the opportunity to transform it into grist for the political mill.

I appreciate the solidarity, believe me, Mike, but let's be plainer: we didn't call it sexist, I did. And the reason I did is that this isn't some game for me where I'm playing for "pc points", it's real, and I want it to stay real. Sexism has effed up my very own personal life and still does. I've been fighting it for over 30 years---almost half my life and more than a whole generation.

If I suppress my irritation in the name of "transform[ing] it into grist for the political mill", how different am I to the used car salesman who will do anything, say anything to get the sale? The salesman does his best to make us forget that the payoff for him is money and there's no real relationship involved despite the glad-handing and the spurious trappings of intimacy. He's not trying to create that illusion for our sake, but for his own.

But (as you say in the next paragraph down, not quoted here), the payoff in political community-building is--must be--the relationship itself. Yet if that relationship is based on one person or faction "making nice" for the sake of manipulating the rest, how real is it? How much can it be relied on? Not much, I don't think. People ordinarily feel a sense of betrayal and outrage when they discover that they've been manipulated, don't they? (I do!)

Let's step back a moment and look at that interaction. Had points been my goal, I might have overstated the case and implied that Kid's an MCP and sexism a way of life. But, since building the relationship, not scoring points, was/is my goal, I was careful to disclaim any such notion and to keep it all as light as possible, consistent with making clear that I'm not going to channel Phyllis Schlafly.

I'm open to hearing contrary argument, but right now I feel strongly that we need to play it straight in our dealings with one another because otherwise we're not going to be able to play it straight with anyone else. And we are not alone in our lack of respect for the BS artists. Nobody likes to be given the mushroom treatment.

All we have to offer is our honesty. If we give that up, we're done.

That's my feeling, anyway.

Once we have a hotbed of grievance going, and an atmosphere that is not smashing people down, atomizing them, turning them back into isolated individual units who have no one but themselves to blame, the work of connecting those grievances to the national social situation starts. This doesn't need to be fine tuned - God spare us from those perfect little Green platforms! - and endlessly argued about. Accept people the way they are, and start from where they are. We want to change society, not improve people. Leave that whole business of enlightenment and self-improvement to the Greens and the religious people.

Next comes organization and action. Actually, all four will be happening at the same time – new people brought into the circle, establishing communication, roughing out consensus on a framework of political theory and on principles and ideals, organization and action.

The first thing to organize and to take action on is expanding the circle and spreading the word. In other words, causing yet more “hot air.”

From there we set up meetings, send out rabble rousing pamphlets, infiltrate organizations, coordinate with organizations (unions, immigrant rights groups, advocates for the poor, minority organizations – NOT upscale liberal activist groups, as they will aggressively destroy what we are trying to build.)

This will work. We don't need to micro-manage the thing, we don't need to have it all planned out, we don't need to do it all, it doesn't need to be perfect. Think momentum, not perfection. Our job is to rabble rouse, and to steer the rabble to think in terms of class struggle. The more people involved in planning, etc, the more they will own it. We need to break through that “tell me what to do, oh wise one” paralysis. Blast through the suppression and watch how smart, motivated and interested people will become.

I feel a little doubtful about this method, though I freely admit that I haven't any very solid base for my doubts. It feels like (i'm still with the smithing metaphor that Kid came up with) the time I tried to sweat-solder two sheets of silver together. I couldn't get the piece heated up. Every time I'd move the torch to heat up a new area, the old area would immediately cool off. I still don't know whether a more skilled smith could have done it with the torch I was using, or whether the problem was that the torch was too small for the job. But whatever the case, it didn't work, I couldn't do it. I sort of got the pieces soldered together, but it was a poor join and the silver had suffered with all the re-heating.

Like my soldering, the Populist movement in the 19th c. was somewhat successful, but not successful enough. It never managed to get the whole country heated. Was that because the torch (communication channels) wasn't big enough for the job, or was it the skill of the smith (the movement itself) that was too meager?

that the people who want to see DK be president get together and build a machine to get his message out in prep for 2008.


Maybe some of us don't see electing Kid Guru as any kind of doing.

They are also fascinated with the challenge of motivation - "come on people, let's all get real enthusiastic about this homecoming float project, and really show some school spirit! I think Muffie will be homecoming queen, and she is going to give a speech about world peace! We can really make a difference if we just show some motivation! You can make fun of it if you want, but at least some of us are doing something!"



I could never put my finger on it and that is it. That is it.

The Germans had Hitler and the possibility of developing an atomic bomb was obvious, and the possibility that they would develop it before we did was very much of a fright. So I decided to go to the meeting at three o'clock.

By four oçlock I already had a desk in a room and was trying to calculate....


Doing something is racing to blow up the world before you can blow up the world? Doing something would've exposed the American corporations who were funding Hitler's war machine.

Doing something is idiotic when we all don't even agree what we are doing. At PI they decided on a very narrow focus and determined that voting Kucinich as team captain was the goal, when the question we had was does Kucinich represent, operate out of, endorse and ultimately capitulate to the framework that only reinforces what we are supposedly doing something to address. There was resistance to any discussion on that point and I am still pissed off about it. :twisted:

which better describes the mission here?

I vote tentacles. to cells. local issues on the ground, national scope.

What I mean is does this group connect to multiple other groups?

Are there well meaning liberal activists who could be no less effective or educatable than a republican who comes along to discuss with us?

I think a truly effective action is going to depend on trumping party politics by working with and against both in the interest of a populist movement for clean pro-people government. Perhaps the movement has a name. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is just activating enough people to take some time to peek out from under their oppression and do something about someone else's every now and again...

Clear action and involvement by the Folk on account of economic matters will, in these purely economic times, be an unstoppable force.

So, I am not feeling too finicky about whom I consort with...there is no need to 'go shopping.'

that the people who want to see DK be president get together and build a machine to get his message out in prep for 2008.


Maybe some of us don't see electing Kid Guru as any kind of doing.
Yep, I know some--not naming names :twisted:--don't, but the ones I was trying to get moving allegedly did/do. Shouldn't that make a difference?


There was resistance to any discussion on that point and I am still pissed off about it. :twisted:
I'd never have guessed 8) .

Joking aside, Raph, I honestly can't think of anything Tin could have done to screw that up more than she did. It was practically a textbook example. That you're still pissed doesn't surprise me (are you Scots by any chance? :) )

Italian, English, Irish, Alsace-Lorrainian :shock: , but I could pass for Scottish by red-headed appearance.

The Germans had Hitler and the possibility of developing an atomic bomb was obvious, and the possibility that they would develop it before we did was very much of a fright. So I decided to go to the meeting at three o'clock.

By four oçlock I already had a desk in a room and was trying to calculate....


Doing something is racing to blow up the world before you can blow up the world? Doing something would've exposed the American corporations who were funding Hitler's war machine.
I just realised that I don't understand what you meant, here. Are you saying that Feynman et al. were wrong to work on the bomb, and should instead have worked to expose corporate collaboration? Or something else and I'm even further away than I thought?

which better describes the mission here?

I vote tentacles. to cells. local issues on the ground, national scope.

What I mean is does this group connect to multiple other groups?

Are there other groups? I would have thought there'd be hundreds, but they mostly seem to be DU-like, don't they?




I think a truly effective action is going to depend on trumping party politics by working with and against both in the interest of a populist movement for clean pro-people government. Perhaps the movement has a name. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is just activating enough people to take some time to peek out from under their oppression and do something about someone else's every now and again...

Clear action and involvement by the Folk on account of economic matters will, in these purely economic times, be an unstoppable force.

So, I am not feeling too finicky about whom I consort with...there is no need to 'go shopping.'
Agreed. Coalition politics are the only ones that can work for us. The trick will be to find people who've been able to get beyond slogans.

but I could pass for Scottish by red-headed appearance.
that figures :twisted:

which better describes the mission here? I vote tentacles. to cells. local issues on the ground, national scope. What I mean is does this group connect to multiple other groups?
Agreed.

Are there well meaning liberal activists who could be no less effective or educatable than a republican who comes along to discuss with us?
Tougher nuts to crack IMO, sometimes. I think the people here are as different from most liberals as they are from most Republicans. I don't think liberal means ally.

I think a truly effective action is going to depend on trumping party politics by working with and against both in the interest of a populist movement for clean pro-people government. Perhaps the movement has a name. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is just activating enough people to take some time to peek out from under their oppression and do something about someone else's every now and again...
We can't do it all, and we can't control or predict what will happen. We are probably too close to things, too immersed to see how creatively and intellectually constipated the country is. Things are so constricted and paralyzed. No juice flows, everyone is wound up in a tight little knot. No elbow room. No breathing space. That makes anything and everything impossible. Stirring up trouble, rabble rousing, breaking up the log jams is the role we can play. The whole country is in some sort of uptight rigid lockstep driven by fear and anxiety and stress.

Clear action and involvement by the Folk on account of economic matters will, in these purely economic times, be an unstoppable force.
Yes. That is not something we need to make happen, that is something that will happen no matter what we do. People will then be desperate. Many already are desperate. Then suddenly, when they resist and rebel - people already are resisting and rebelling everywhere - the rest of the people are then forced to make a choice. Throw those poor unfortunates to the wolves and hide out and escape and deny what is happening, or risk becoming one of those poor unfortunates yourself.

This will happen. This is happening. It is bearing down on us like a speeding locomotive.

99 out of 100 people I talk with are right on the edge of losing their minds. Yet everyone pretends this isn't true. All of those suffering think that they did something wrong or that they are the only one having problems. We must smash up that extremely dangerous illusion that things are more or less working, and that is coming primarily from well-off liberals and Democrats. We must break through the silence.

So, I am not feeling too finicky about whom I consort with...there is no need to 'go shopping.'
Just below the surface, the "have a nice day" and "now a look at your money with our financial analyst Paul Donaldson" and the happy, happy pharmaceutical ads on TV (always with a fear mongering zinger hidden in them, though) the whole illusion of nicey-nice life there is a cesspool of resentment, anger, confusion, fear, anxiety - people are truly crazed and irrational. We must open up - lance the festering boil. You can't do that and keep the nicey-nice pseudo-rational veneer in place.

I heard a discussion on NPR this morning about health care that made my blood run cold. They are blithely and smoothly (I HATE that shit from NPR – the slick, arrogant, smooth, calm elitist tone of voice and posturing) about making health care mandatory to “solve” the “problem.” All bullshit, because they are talking about insurance, not health care. The problem, they say, is that many do not have “coverage.” WTF is “coverage?" Then they talk about mandatory “coverage” with the government helping those who can't afford “coverage” - and the guy says “for whatever reason.” We all know or we should know what “for whatever reason” means - it means that it is the person's own fault. That there is something wrong with them (that the panel won't go into right now in detail, wink wink but we all know what we are talking about, don't we now?) We all know what “the government will help those” means too. Bureaucracy, a stigma on those needing help, endless paperwork, this or that not “covered” for this or that arcane reason, and more ways for the authorities to hassle and demean people.

So, one “aspect of the problem” is that people “for whatever reason” don't have coverage.” Universal heath care is being transformed into mandatory coverage to solve this problem. “Universal” = “mandatory” and “health care” = “insurance.”

Another aspect of the problem, according to the ”experts” is that “our health care crisis is much bigger than this. It is nit merely a matter of delivery of health care that is driving up costs, it is the fact that people are not healthy.” Yes, illness is the fault of those who are ill. “So we need to incentivize people keeping themselves healthier. There is no way that we can bring health care costs down unless people take better care of themselves. Penalties and incentives are needed and the public needs to take some responsibility here for their own well-being.”

Then they discuss the “experiments” in various states and what is wrong with them – all subtly designed to leave the impression that government involvement in health care doesn't work. “Still no one is denying that we have a problem” one of the jerks says. “One thing about California that we need to keep in mind” another panelist pontificates “is the large number of Latinos there, and demographics do make a difference.” At this point listening to the radio on the car I am actually talking to the radio and using the F word over and over again – I too am half crazed and losing my mind. “It is just a fact that Latinos are less likely to have insurance (the lazy wetbacks) and are much less likely to get medical services.” Then he says “I don't mean illegals, necessarily....” Necessarily - fuck you, you pompous asshole. “The strange thing is” he continues “that even though Latinos have less access to health care, they are much healthier. We don't know why that is.”

Gee, could it be that the medical industry is doing more harm than good? That people without health care are on the whole better off? Or am I getting too radical here? Could it be that both of these are true - that many people are suffering because they can't get assistance when they really need it, yet those who have full access to health care are being harmed in the long run by modern medicine?

Gee, could it be that the medical industry is doing more harm than good? That people without health care are on the whole better off? Or am I getting too radical here? Could it be that both of these are true - that many people are suffering because they can't get assistance when they really need it, yet those who have full access to health care are being harmed in the long run by modern medicine?

Oh its true alright, I think we just don't realize how true it is. I've found some great resources and thoughts about this idea but some of the best are in here:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Doctor-Ph ... F8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Doctor-Physicists-Health-Healing/dp/1571744177/sr=8-4/qid=1168971425/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/102-1174283-4946534?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I don't personally buy all the probabilistic/Uncertainty stuff though

“It is just a fact that Latinos are less likely to have insurance (the lazy wetbacks) and are much less likely to get medical services.” Then he says “I don't mean illegals, necessarily....” Necessarily - fuck you, you pompous asshole. “The strange thing is” he continues “that even though Latinos have less access to health care, they are much healthier. We don't know why that is.”

Gee, could it be that the medical industry is doing more harm than good? That people without health care are on the whole better off? Or am I getting too radical here? Could it be that both of these are true - that many people are suffering because they can't get assistance when they really need it, yet those who have full access to health care are being harmed in the long run by modern medicine?

There are even simpler explanations, Mike (though more radical, if possible). (a) The healthier latinos are the survivors--the ones who got sick, died unnoticed. (b) They aren't healthier, and the claim that they are is the Brown variant on "Blacks don't feel pain the way people do". Remember that? You're old enough to have heard that, growing up.

which better describes the mission here? I vote tentacles. to cells. local issues on the ground, national scope. What I mean is does this group connect to multiple other groups?
Agreed.

Are there well meaning liberal activists who could be no less effective or educatable than a republican who comes along to discuss with us?
Tougher nuts to crack IMO, sometimes. I think the people here are as different from most liberals as they are from most Republicans. I don't think liberal means ally.

I think a truly effective action is going to depend on trumping party politics by working with and against both in the interest of a populist movement for clean pro-people government. Perhaps the movement has a name. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is just activating enough people to take some time to peek out from under their oppression and do something about someone else's every now and again...
We can't do it all, and we can't control or predict what will happen. We are probably too close to things, too immersed to see how creatively and intellectually constipated the country is. Things are so constricted and paralyzed. No juice flows, everyone is wound up in a tight little knot. No elbow room. No breathing space. That makes anything and everything impossible. Stirring up trouble, rabble rousing, breaking up the log jams is the role we can play. The whole country is in some sort of uptight rigid lockstep driven by fear and anxiety and stress.

Clear action and involvement by the Folk on account of economic matters will, in these purely economic times, be an unstoppable force.
Yes. That is not something we need to make happen, that is something that will happen no matter what we do. People will then be desperate. Many already are desperate. Then suddenly, when they resist and rebel - people already are resisting and rebelling everywhere - the rest of the people are then forced to make a choice. Throw those poor unfortunates to the wolves and hide out and escape and deny what is happening, or risk becoming one of those poor unfortunates yourself.

This will happen. This is happening. It is bearing down on us like a speeding locomotive.

99 out of 100 people I talk with are right on the edge of losing their minds. Yet everyone pretends this isn't true. All of those suffering think that they did something wrong or that they are the only one having problems. We must smash up that extremely dangerous illusion that things are more or less working, and that is coming primarily from well-off liberals and Democrats. We must break through the silence.

So, I am not feeling too finicky about whom I consort with...there is no need to 'go shopping.'
Just below the surface, the "have a nice day" and "now a look at your money with our financial analyst Paul Donaldson" and the happy, happy pharmaceutical ads on TV (always with a fear mongering zinger hidden in them, though) the whole illusion of nicey-nice life there is a cesspool of resentment, anger, confusion, fear, anxiety - people are truly crazed and irrational. We must open up - lance the festering boil. You can't do that and keep the nicey-nice pseudo-rational veneer in place.

I heard a discussion on NPR this morning about health care that made my blood run cold. They are blithely and smoothly (I HATE that shit from NPR – the slick, arrogant, smooth, calm elitist tone of voice and posturing) about making health care mandatory to “solve” the “problem.” All bullshit, because they are talking about insurance, not health care. The problem, they say, is that many do not have “coverage.” WTF is “coverage?" Then they talk about mandatory “coverage” with the government helping those who can't afford “coverage” - and the guy says “for whatever reason.” We all know or we should know what “for whatever reason” means - it means that it is the person's own fault. That there is something wrong with them (that the panel won't go into right now in detail, wink wink but we all know what we are talking about, don't we now?) We all know what “the government will help those” means too. Bureaucracy, a stigma on those needing help, endless paperwork, this or that not “covered” for this or that arcane reason, and more ways for the authorities to hassle and demean people.

So, one “aspect of the problem” is that people “for whatever reason” don't have coverage.” Universal heath care is being transformed into mandatory coverage to solve this problem. “Universal” = “mandatory” and “health care” = “insurance.”

Another aspect of the problem, according to the ”experts” is that “our health care crisis is much bigger than this. It is nit merely a matter of delivery of health care that is driving up costs, it is the fact that people are not healthy.” Yes, illness is the fault of those who are ill. “So we need to incentivize people keeping themselves healthier. There is no way that we can bring health care costs down unless people take better care of themselves. Penalties and incentives are needed and the public needs to take some responsibility here for their own well-being.”

Then they discuss the “experiments” in various states and what is wrong with them – all subtly designed to leave the impression that government involvement in health care doesn't work. “Still no one is denying that we have a problem” one of the jerks says. “One thing about California that we need to keep in mind” another panelist pontificates “is the large number of Latinos there, and demographics do make a difference.” At this point listening to the radio on the car I am actually talking to the radio and using the F word over and over again – I too am half crazed and losing my mind. “It is just a fact that Latinos are less likely to have insurance (the lazy wetbacks) and are much less likely to get medical services.” Then he says “I don't mean illegals, necessarily....” Necessarily - fuck you, you pompous asshole. “The strange thing is” he continues “that even though Latinos have less access to health care, they are much healthier. We don't know why that is.”

Gee, could it be that the medical industry is doing more harm than good? That people without health care are on the whole better off? Or am I getting too radical here? Could it be that both of these are true - that many people are suffering because they can't get assistance when they really need it, yet those who have full access to health care are being harmed in the long run by modern medicine?


Funny,one of the posts that I pm'd you about, responding to your 'look in the mirror' thread and here you address it:

99 out of 100 people I talk with are right on the edge of losing their minds. Yet everyone pretends this isn't true. All of those suffering think that they did something wrong or that they are the only one having problems. We must smash up that extremely dangerous illusion that things are more or less working, and that is coming primarily from well-off liberals and Democrats. We must break through the silence.

Damn near everybody that I'm close to is sucking wind, yet it is as you say above, bad decisions , bad luck, anything but a rigged game.

My sister is losing her house because of debt and gentrification.

My friend on disability has to halve his medication because of the doughnut hole in his medicaid.

My friend who is an electrical tech has almost no work and has taken up meth.

My oldest bud has lost his second business in 6 years and has the bankers up his ass.

Still, if I talk to them about what we talk about here then I'm a crazy dreamer. Aren't they hurting enough, do I have to hit them upside the head? These aren't middle class suburbanites, yet they accept the frame. It is much easier to communicate with those who have been on the bottom of the heap their whole lives, day laborers, walmart clerks, etc. It seems that anyone who's had even a tad of good economic fortune at some time, small contractors and tradesmen, mom&pop business owners, former government employees, are more than happy to bitch but let it go there. It just makes me wonder, if I can't make the case for collective action with them then who do I think am to be talking to strangers?

But then nobody said it would be easy. Like Fearless Leader sez:"it's hard work!"

There are even simpler explanations...

Physical Labor

That's my feeling, anyway.
I am not accusing you of going for points nor suggesting that you suppress your thoughts. Nor am I saying that Kid's remarks were not sexist. I am saying that there may be more there. Explain how and why it is sexist - talk about it - listen to what Kid is saying beyond the surface. Don't dismiss him out of hand and shut down the discussion, is all I am suggesting. That doesn't mean surrender, nor agree with him, nor stay silent.

That's my feeling, anyway.
I am not accusing you of going for points nor suggesting that you suppress your thoughts. Nor am I saying that Kid's remarks were not sexist. I am saying that there may be more there. Explain how and why it is sexist - talk about it - listen to what Kid is saying beyond the surface. Don't dismiss him out of hand and shut down the discussion, is all I am suggesting. That doesn't mean surrender, nor agree with him, nor stay silent.
I thought "talk about it" is what I did. What are you seeing that I'm not?

That's my feeling, anyway.
I am not accusing you of going for points nor suggesting that you suppress your thoughts. Nor am I saying that Kid's remarks were not sexist. I am saying that there may be more there. Explain how and why it is sexist - talk about it - listen to what Kid is saying beyond the surface. Don't dismiss him out of hand and shut down the discussion, is all I am suggesting. That doesn't mean surrender, nor agree with him, nor stay silent.

Well, as I see it you can construe anything as sexist if you really, really want to. Saying "Men refuse to ask for directions" is sexist if you get insistent. My intent is rarely to offend someone just for the hell of it. So, yeah, the stuff I'm posting tends to be truisms at best, but I really doubt anyone will mistake what I say for fact.

I don't think its suppression because I am not cramming this down anyone's throat. In fact people stick this in my face more often: oh, you poor unlucky kids all the girls today are so pushy and arrogant..where will you find a nice, traditional girl to settle down with?

I've heard that from all range of people, including most women who are over a certain indefinite age.

And look, its not a hard and fast rule, there are lotsa nice, meek girls out there, unfortunately right under the surface they tend to be a neurotic mess.

Robert Anton Wilson (RAW) has a quote that maybe helps out (hideously paraphrased): 'Is, Is, Is..what nonsense, I can't say what something 'is" all I can say is how it appears to me right now"

So, maybe that lends a better context to what I'm saying (trying to say).

There are even simpler explanations...

Physical Labor
What, physical labor keeps people healthy? On some level that's true, but it also kills people early. Or are you joking and, as usual, I'm missing it? :)

Well, as I see it you can construe anything as sexist if you really, really want to. Saying "Men refuse to ask for directions" is sexist if you get insistent.
In my experience, some things are more easily diagnosed than others. :twisted: And you're completely right about the directions thing--saying it IS sexist, and you don't even have to insist. It is. It just is.

Sexism is not-okay when serious, but it's fine as a joke. That's why I didn't mind Mike's phrasing that you found snarky.


My intent is rarely to offend someone just for the hell of it.
I know that, and would never dream of implying anything else.


there are lotsa nice, meek girls out there, unfortunately right under the surface they tend to be a neurotic mess.
Well hell yes they're a mess, what would you expect? They're trying to obey a cultural prescription that, if obeyed by males, is diagnosable.

Your problem is that you're dating the wrong women. Go find a real fang-and-claw feminist. They exist, even today. Look for women who are healthy looking, wearing comfortable, classic clothing and little makeup. The ones who'd rather eat worms than wear a slit skirt or spike heels. Get someone who really believes in equal rights. It'll be very refreshing, once you get over the shock--you'll wonder why you ever wasted your time courting any other sort. But be prepared to be constantly called on your stuff.

There are even simpler explanations...

Physical Labor
What, physical labor keeps people healthy? On some level that's true, but it also kills people early. Or are you joking and, as usual, I'm missing it? :)

Um, dead serious? :P

There are even simpler explanations...

Physical Labor
What, physical labor keeps people healthy? On some level that's true, but it also kills people early. Or are you joking and, as usual, I'm missing it? :)

Um, dead serious? :P
Oh, okay, cool.

So what about the dying young part? Doing physical labor definitely keeps the weight down and fends off the Type 2 diabetes, so you're right there, but it also brings on degenerative arthritis and just plain wears people out early.

I thought "talk about it" is what I did. What are you seeing that I'm not?
Well I can't find the original post.

On edit - I really can't find that exchange for some reason. Was it from another thread?

It was not the position you took, it was the way you expressed it that I was talking about. "Well that is sexism. Next! Let's move on." See what I mean? Putting a label on the post - whether right or wrong - has the effect of packaging it up and throwing it in the garbage. The label becomes the conclusion, the end of the discussion. And then throwing the label out casually is a challenge - daring anyone to contradict it, since it is so self-evident that it doesn't warrant much comment.

You may be 100% right about it, that isn't what matters. You may be unwilling to entertain any contradiction to your view. But does that also mean you are unwilling to engage in any discussion about your view? Is it sufficient to know that you are right, he is wrong, and we all know where we stand, so we can drop it or we can get into a feud to the death about it? Are those the only alternatives? Those are the only alternatives implied by what you said. Someone then has to work very hard, and risk contentious debate - “sexism is very effing real” you said to me, as though I had taken the opposite position – in order to keep the subject open and explore it. We let it drop, or we are seen as perhaps not agreeing that sexism is very real.

So my question for you all is: Why would people who claim to passionately want some result be unwilling to lift a finger to get the result? What're the dynamics of that disconnect? Does that have a deeper message of some kind for our ability to create change?
What about my idea of forming cells, holdng meetings, coordinating them online and sharing feedback, putting out rabble rousing pamphlets, and building an organization? No one is doing what we could do. There is a desperate need for it.

It may be flawed. It has gotten so little interest -and I have made several major attempts to promote it with several different groups, most recently PI - that I am thinking I may be missing something or on the wrong track.

[quote=Kid Of The Black Hole]Well, as I see it you can construe anything as sexist if you really, really want to. Saying "Men refuse to ask for directions" is sexist if you get insistent.
In my experience, some things are more easily diagnosed than others. :twisted: And you're completely right about the directions thing--saying it IS sexist, and you don't even have to insist. It is. It just is.

Sexism is not-okay when serious, but it's fine as a joke. That's why I didn't mind Mike's phrasing that you found snarky.


My intent is rarely to offend someone just for the hell of it.
I know that, and would never dream of implying anything else.


there are lotsa nice, meek girls out there, unfortunately right under the surface they tend to be a neurotic mess.
Well hell yes they're a mess, what would you expect? They're trying to obey a cultural prescription that, if obeyed by males, is diagnosable.

Your problem is that you're dating the wrong women. Go find a real fang-and-claw feminist. They exist, even today. Look for women who are healthy looking, wearing comfortable, classic clothing and little makeup. The ones who'd rather eat worms than wear a slit skirt or spike heels. Get someone who really believes in equal rights. It'll be very refreshing, once you get over the shock--you'll wonder why you ever wasted your time courting any other sort. But be prepared to be constantly called on your stuff.[/quote:2i62560b]

This country was founded by a bunch of people so prudish Europe showed them the door. Or, perhaps, they left voluntarily so they could be free to practice their ridiculously militant brand of prudishness.

There is this whole undercurrent that goes something like - sex is about empowerment and who ever controls the sex in a relationship has the power. Maybe that is completely true as a social dynamic. But it is also a piss-poor, antagonistic mentality to base a 1 on 1 relationship on.

I am trying to say this without sounding like a horndog lol

Also *I* might wear a skirt before eating worms..

There is this whole undercurrent that goes something like - sex is about empowerment and who ever controls the sex in a relationship has the power. Maybe that is completely true as a social dynamic. But it is also a piss-poor, antagonistic mentality to base a 1 on 1 relationship on.
Okay....and so, since you're fully aware of the pathology in such pseudo-intimate relationships, why do you continue to seek them out? Why not seek out women who don't treat sex as a weapon in a battle for dominance?

On edit - I really can't find that exchange for some reason. Was it from another thread?
Yes. http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... .php?p=636 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=636)


It was not the position you took, it was the way you expressed it that I was talking about. "Well that is sexism. Next! Let's move on." See what I mean? Putting a label on the post - whether right or wrong - has the effect of packaging it up and throwing it in the garbage. The label becomes the conclusion, the end of the discussion. And then throwing the label out casually is a challenge - daring anyone to contradict it, since it is so self-evident that it doesn't warrant much comment.

You may be 100% right about it, that isn't what matters. You may be unwilling to entertain any contradiction to your view. But does that also mean you are unwilling to engage in any discussion about your view? Is it sufficient to know that you are right, he is wrong, and we all know where we stand, so we can drop it or we can get into a feud to the death about it? Are those the only alternatives? Those are the only alternatives implied by what you said. Someone then has to work very hard, and risk contentious debate - “sexism is very effing real” you said to me, as though I had taken the opposite position – in order to keep the subject open and explore it. We let it drop, or we are seen as perhaps not agreeing that sexism is very real.
Re-read the exchange, Mike. :twisted:

What sexist remarks?

Some feminists are on the ultimate power trips especially when they identify power as competing with men within the male framework. Aggressive, pushy, assertive, corporate, management--business ambition, broad-shouldered. If women want that, fine, but they should not be dictating the terms of what a feminist is. Equality is not in adopting the stupidity of men. :wink:

What sexist remarks?

Some feminists are on the ultimate power trips especially when they identify power as competing with men within the male framework. Aggressive, pushy, assertive, corporate, management--business ambition, broad-shouldered. If women want that, fine, but they should not be dictating the terms of what a feminist is. Equality is not in adopting the stupidity of men. :wink:
mwahahahah...good one, Raph.

So my question for you all is: Why would people who claim to passionately want some result be unwilling to lift a finger to get the result? What're the dynamics of that disconnect? Does that have a deeper message of some kind for our ability to create change?
What about my idea of forming cells, holdng meetings, coordinating them online and sharing feedback, putting out rabble rousing pamphlets, and building an organization? No one is doing what we could do. There is a desperate need for it.

It may be flawed. It has gotten so little interest -and I have made several major attempts to promote it with several different groups, most recently PI - that I am thinking I may be missing something or on the wrong track.
I don't know what the hell the dynamics are in results like that, Mike. The simplistic theory, of course, is that the people who run their mouths online are 99.99% 'keyboard kommandos' with no interest in doing anything substantive. Is that simplistic theory actually valid? Damned if I know, but the more often it happens the closer I come to believing it (Heinlein, whose cap-lib politics I abhorred but who could be an accurate observer, advanced that thesis in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress -- he has a group of people being given parliamentary membership and assigned to debate issues because the real movers-and-shakers recognise that they're nothing but drones who'll get in the way of real work if not kept busy)

That there have been many proposals about what to do, but you keep coming back to square one. Sort of like banging your head against a wall. Talking is doing by the way---what the hell do you think all those right-wing think tanks were doing that came up with such a successful strategy to manufacture consensus?

That there have been many proposals about what to do, but you keep coming back to square one. Sort of like banging your head against a wall.
I haven't seen "many" -- could you point them out? Has everyone else signed up for one of them and I'm just trailing the pack as usual?


Talking is doing by the way---what the hell do you think all those right-wing think tanks were doing that came up with such a successful strategy to manufacture consensus?
You surely must love being contentious. :twisted: You know perfectly well what I'm talking :lol: about.

http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=48

Besides PU, oops, I mean PI is always doing when maybe they should be talking.Oh, that's right, they don't want to hear it because they are doing something, damnit!'

http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=48
Okay, that's one. Where are the rest of the 'many'?


Besides PU, oops, I mean PI is always doing when maybe they should be talking.Oh, that's right, they don't want to hear it because they are doing something, damnit!'

Jeez, Raph, will you quit trying to beat on me for what others are or aren't doing! I'm not their mama or their therapist. What they do or don't is their choice, not yours or mine.

if you want to "do something". What don't you just do it then?


Hehe