DIALOGUES FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE
Issue that started this thread:
This is very important, please help.
Stop the pesticide that’s killing bees. [print_link]
Honey bees have been dying at alarming rates in the last few years. Recently leaked evidence shows that the E.P.A. ignored critical information when approving a chemical linked to the bee die-off. Sign the petition telling the E.P.A. to ban clothianidin today.
4 hours ago · Unlike · Comment · Unsubscribe
- You and Nick Lembesis like this.
Addison DePitt This is indeed extremely important and symptomatic of the general crisis spawned by the clash of a human species out of control, operating under a deranged and corrupt system, and nature itself. What gets me is the obvious failure and near total unresponsiveness of the current government (size doesn’t matter in this regard) which approves or is indifferent to problems and dangers that should be its first and foremost raison d’etre. To petition the government once in a while is key to a true functioning democracy—no one is infallible and the governors may lose their compass (I’m talking here about a decent system). But this nonsense of CONSTANT need to petition this rotten government to do the OBVIOUS is symptomatic of the fact it is not governing in the interests of the majority nor of nature. Its illegitimacy derives from its sheer non-representativeness, and the stench comes from its pretensions to still be acting in our name. If literally tens of thousands of individuals just in the US are wise to such things, why aren’t these so-called representatives of the people—surrounded by the full research power of the federal government—” not aware ” of such issues and in need of pressuring and reminding? These things make my blood boil. Like · 2 people
Jenny Kastner Done!3 hours ago · Like
Tod Jones Yes…participatory government should not need to be an exercise in unresting vigilance, wherein it must be assumed that our leaders will inevitably act in bad faith until they are found out and shamed into behaving, in those cases where they are still susceptible to shame.2 hours ago · Like
Jenny Kastner Maybe it “shouldn’t” be that way, Tod, but it IS. So in order to keep our fragile democracy I would suggest we must be vigilant and constantly in touch with our elected leaders.2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Tod Jones Yes indeed. That’s how it has to be.2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Addison DePitt The problem is that, long wrapped in public relationese and other stratagems to fool the masses, all the ruling orders, at least in terms of major policy, grossly misbehave. The almost permanent lack of sync with the interests of the majority is the giveaway that something awfully fraudulent is taking place in the name of “democracy”. 2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Jenny Kastner Which is precisely why we need to keep speaking up, Addison. :)2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Tod Jones Yes…there can be no question of either tiring or despairing. Even if this is the Gotterdammerung.2 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Thomas O’Keefe What is even more frightening than this, if that is possible, is that Monsanto is actually genetically engineering the pesticides into plants now, and putting pressure on our government to put pressure on other governments around the world to force them to use their GMO seed. See
ch?v=-RxU7YustxM2 hours ago · Like
Tod Jones That is monstrous, Thomas. And the fact that NOBODY wants to eat genetically modified food is a matter of complete irrelevance. Here is where a misplaced faith in science and pure reason breaks down. Science, as a matter of fact, is destroying us, as it is the indispensable handmaid of the most ruthless corporate and military masters.about an hour ago · Like
Thomas O’Keefe So well said Tod. Some think that science will be mankind’s new savior but science without a conscience, without high ethical standards can only lead to ruin. This is why , in my humble opinion, science and religion (or metaphysical philosophy if you prefer) have to run in tandem of each other and those in those disciplines be mutually respectful of one another.about an hour ago · Like
Addison DePitt As usual a very ambitious topical discussion, and one fears filing a comment that will not do it justice. Briefly then, but with serious intent:
- (1) Yes, it’s necessary to keep on talking and speaking up but we need to avoid going in circles. Above all we need to review who we are chiefly talking to, and, counterintuitively, it’s not so much those in power. By the time they are in power it’s way too late. Instead, we need to deepen and broaden the dialogue among us, the people, and start seeking alternatives to “sheeple” civics course, or mainstream television-approved political behavior.
- (2) The system has by now taken our measure and developed a huge thick crust of cynicism, in addition to its incalculable hypocrisy. Thus, aside from boilerplate robotic responses, appeals and petitions fall on deaf ears— unless backed up with some sort of action that costs the system something. Rhetoric as a pacifier is cheap (just watch Obama in that department, he has few equals). And even when petitions are backed up with all-out action, the powers that be have learned to stay the course and cold-bloodedly wait us out avoiding an all-out provocation (like making too many martyrs out of the protesters, which they’d have no moral problem doing, except that it’s bad p.r.) So we must learn from what just happened in France and Greece, for example.
- Basically, they know they have many more resources to lean on than the working masses, and that in the final analysis they also have a substantive amount of raw muscle—police, military, and the mercenary and brainwashed on their side—to put us down. At least momentarily. Or until the whole enchilada sinks of its own.
- So petitioning ad nauseam “our elected representatives” is to indulge in self-delusion and, equally important, legitimate the system when our objective should always be the opposite. (Incidentally, when speaking to THEM, the powerholders, watch your tone. Our tone has to increasingly be not only serious but righteously irate, as the situation calls for. We are dealing, literally with outrages, frequently with world-class criminals, so we must match speech with tone. Avoid docile nonsense like speaking reverentially about Barack Obama as “President Obama”, “President Bush,” or equally repugnant, “President Clinton.” Everyone who is not braindead knows their official titles. Ignore them. Speak of Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. Defiance and docility create habits of the mind when practiced. Practice the former and avoid the latter. The moment calls for that. So what to do when you are swamped with so many wrongs and only so many hours a day to pick your way through any of these, with little hope of having an effect? Talk to similar-minded people and begin to devise ways to form resistance nuclei from the ground up—local, state, regional. And above all, FORTIFY THE LEFT MEDIA. (I’m talking the true left here, not what passes for left in this country, but that’s another huge discussion.) Hint: If you think The Nation or NPR are “the left” you’re wrong by quite a few degrees. If they’re “left” they’re highly unstable and unreliable allies, as likely to side with the enemy as with us, and in the latter occasion with plenty of wobbles. (If you doubt this, or think it too radical, let me know and I will be happy to direct you to materials that show you where the skeletons hide). What many people even on this list of progressives insist on calling “the far left” is actually truer to the left spirit than the comfy centrist “liberal left.” The left in this confusing and massively ignorant country is only called “far left” because the right-wingers and the establishment have intimidated the liberals into joining a fraudulent shift of the whole political spectrum way to the right. Hence all reading of political coordinates is inherently adulterated: what should be center is left, and the real left becomes “far left,” instantly branded as “extreme” and unqualified for polite company.
- Our dialogue should have but one main objective: to help us coalesce into a well-organized anticorporate counter-status quo movement capable of eventually spawning a “supra-party.” Such a party would pick its political battles and tactics carefully, not following the script dictated by the ruling orders. It would work with people inside and outside the Democratic party, whose top echelon, especially the treacherous DLC, is today one of the great obstacles to serious sociopolitical change in America. The new party’s chief agenda (and implicit values) would be the reconstruction of America and the world along the lines of authentic democracy (as opposed to formal democracy, which is all we have), a social peace based on social justice, and love and respect for nature in any and all forms.
- Of course, we’re talking about a monumental task, literally a revolution. I just posted less than half an hour ago on this group’s wall a highly thought-provoking piece by Charles Young, a colleague of Dave Lindorff. Be sure to read it. It goes to the heart to the issue we’re tangentially debating here. An excerpt:
“A revolution is exactly what the United States needs. The amount of cultural/economic/political
change needed to save the world in the brief time we have left is unimaginable without a revolution. You can argue that the ruling class is evil, you can argue that the ruling class is incompetent, you can argue that the ruling class is both. But it has never been more clear that the ruling class is impervious to reform through established channels and the rest of us can look forward to incalculable suffering unless we get rid of it…”
Read it in full— http://www.greanvillepost.com/?p=11396