looking for trouble?
kma | 08.09.2001 01:18
All too often I turn on the pages of Indy media to find a dismaying amount of negative literature. By this i do not mean that the vast array of well thought out and provocative postings that amount to the majority of “newswire”. The postings i am referring to are to be found within a small portion of the comments to those articles.
As David Edwards pointed out in his book “free to be human”, psychologists advice caution when we find either ourselves or other dismissing something out of hand, as absurd or in-comprehensible. It seems there are several different motives for doing this.
First it may be a rational response to a demonstrably irrational argument. Secondly, it may be triggered by the accurate but uncomfortable nature of the argument; it may be just a bit to close to home. Thirdly it may be so contrary to our normal commen-sense view of the world that it seems ridiculous. Fourthly, we may just be lying when we dismiss an argument that we perceive as dangerous.
It seems sad to me that When someone expresses an opinion, however elaborate, that he should be met with calls of `"Babylon" or “infiltrator” or told to basically shut up!
What is the difference between a policeman’s indiscriminate lashing out at peaceful protesters, and our own verbal beatings we all too often dish-out amongst ourselves?
It seems to me that if a person has a valid question/thought, to share in the hope of getting some reply. To meet it with un-founded abuse and out right dismissal can surly not be the answer. I mean shit that what governments are doing to us all the time.
I really think that we need to see the depth of our social conditioning, the true level to which "their" control over us reaches. There is a middle way between Hopelessness and violence. Between blind conformity and insanity, But they do not want us to know that either.
Every time we dismiss someone or something out of hand, or meet it with violence (even mental or verbal violence) we are playing into their hands. We are succumbing to their Philosophy; we are showing just how much like them we really are.
Perhaps this is the real source of much of our anger...the frustrating realisation (however subtle) that we are not so different from that we despise.
To quote Gandhi (badly): “Whenever i am dismayed, i remember that through out history Truth and love have always won. At times the odds against you might seem over whelming. But in the end it is Truth and love that remain victorious.
We should remember that, always...”
We need to struggle inwardly as well as outwardly if we are truly to overcome all our captors.
As David Edwards pointed out in his book “free to be human”, psychologists advice caution when we find either ourselves or other dismissing something out of hand, as absurd or in-comprehensible. It seems there are several different motives for doing this.
First it may be a rational response to a demonstrably irrational argument. Secondly, it may be triggered by the accurate but uncomfortable nature of the argument; it may be just a bit to close to home. Thirdly it may be so contrary to our normal commen-sense view of the world that it seems ridiculous. Fourthly, we may just be lying when we dismiss an argument that we perceive as dangerous.
It seems sad to me that When someone expresses an opinion, however elaborate, that he should be met with calls of `"Babylon" or “infiltrator” or told to basically shut up!
What is the difference between a policeman’s indiscriminate lashing out at peaceful protesters, and our own verbal beatings we all too often dish-out amongst ourselves?
It seems to me that if a person has a valid question/thought, to share in the hope of getting some reply. To meet it with un-founded abuse and out right dismissal can surly not be the answer. I mean shit that what governments are doing to us all the time.
I really think that we need to see the depth of our social conditioning, the true level to which "their" control over us reaches. There is a middle way between Hopelessness and violence. Between blind conformity and insanity, But they do not want us to know that either.
Every time we dismiss someone or something out of hand, or meet it with violence (even mental or verbal violence) we are playing into their hands. We are succumbing to their Philosophy; we are showing just how much like them we really are.
Perhaps this is the real source of much of our anger...the frustrating realisation (however subtle) that we are not so different from that we despise.
To quote Gandhi (badly): “Whenever i am dismayed, i remember that through out history Truth and love have always won. At times the odds against you might seem over whelming. But in the end it is Truth and love that remain victorious.
We should remember that, always...”
We need to struggle inwardly as well as outwardly if we are truly to overcome all our captors.
kma
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
open 2 serious debate
08.09.2001 09:32
But this whole globalisation thing is pretty complicated and it's obvious that most people don't have a clue how it works.
Anyone who mentions groups like Bilderberg is liable to be denounced as a fascist. The villification of the black bloc by the G8 controlled media, is a good example.
It's nearly impossible to discuss what is basically quite a straight forward issue of police and intelligence services being able to undermine a 200.000 strong demo by bussing in a
couple of hundred right wing extremists, for photo op''s.
The arguments and opinions are still on going, but I didn't see any effort to draw conclusions fron the events in Genova. What worries me is that they(the cops ect) are likely to use the same tactics in the future and achieve the same results.
(no offence meant to the Black Bloc)
Although there are some good intersting articles going up on indymedia UK, and the news stories are well worth tuning into. There's is very little serious debate, there seems to be a lot of semi intellectual types who are trying to impress by what they know. But if we are going to take this show on the road, there is a need to educate people who don't know anything about the elite clubs that are running the planet.
In other words it's pointless to preach to the converted.
I know quite a bit about certain groups and certain parts
of the global economy. it's a giant pyramid it's pretty easy
to sus out who is in the pointy bit just below the top.
I have a vague conception of the overall picture, but every so often run into another secret power group or find out about another scam involving organized crime andgovernments and dodgy N.G.O's.
It's interesting to see how for example the Mafia fit into things, the N.G.O's, Greenpeace ,who's spectacular stunts are more for fund raising purposes than to block specific projects, WWF , who do deals with corporates and build nature parks on sites that contain millions of tons of toxic waste.
While their PR machines churn out we are green propaganda.
Be nice to map the pyramid on a user friendly data base,but for the time being, I'll have to be content with FUCK DA POLICE:
Luther Blissett
Sacrifices
08.09.2001 10:24
Son of a Bitch
Pyramids?
09.09.2001 11:52
A more accurate picture is that of a power web with everyone exerting power (albeit not equal power) over eachother.
In terms of a pyramid, who is at the top? The government, right? Not really. Because the government is controlled to a great degree by external influences. Such as lobby groups - the greatest being the business lobby and their associated representative insitutions such as the WTO. Because of business, and other special interest groups, not least the voters ourselves, the government does not exactly have free reign to do whatever it pleases. The government is itself controlled. For argument's sake, let's assume that big business is the main controlling influence over the government. But the pyramid doesn't stop there. Because business is itself under the control of other forces. Business, just like government, is not in the position whereby it can do whatever it pleases. Business is accountable to the shareholders. And who are they?
Surely the shareholders is where the buck stops!
And that means us!
The shareholders are the citizens. Most people own shares, through private investment (directly, or indirectly via a trust fund or even just a savings account with the bank) or even just in the form of a pension fund.
Pension fund managers are ruthless people. They don't have humanitarian concerns. They only care about maximising their profit to the people who employ them - the average citizen.
So, basically the ultimate responsibility for the general fuckupness of The System lies with the general population. The richer you are the more shares you will directly or indirectly own but everyone is responsible to a certain extent.
And that means us.
A pyramid is not an accurate representation of reality because a pyramid implies that there's one big guy at the top. And that's not the way it works.
Society is a complex web, full of people relying on eachother for stuff and people bargaining with eachother for stuff and people telling eachother what to do.
Whilst there are undoubtably individuals with a lot of power and influence and individuals with very little and individuals who fall between these two extremes, there is no one "at the top", as such.
What we have is not a power pyramid but a power web.
Ozymandias
a note on pension funds
10.09.2001 13:24
you are right pension funds, which most working people in the UK contribute to, are the major shareholders - they own about half of the UK stockmarket for instance. it is not true to say pension fund managers are all ruthless bastards though.
pension funds since July last year are required to publicly state if they have an ethical investment policy or not. most companies don't have one, although many local councils do. clearly if you are a member of a pension fund you can hassle your company to implement such a policy. a good thing to quote at them is that they have a fiduciary duty (means they are legally obliged) to investment in the way most beneficial to members. this is historically taken to mean financially beneficial but there is emerging legal opinion that this could also be interpreted as socially beneficial.
for example oil stocks are a good investment financially, but a terrible one socially. given the onset of global warming you could make a good argument that your pension fund manager is breaching their fiduciary duty by investing in, say, Esso particularly if you live somewhere likely to be affected by rising water levels (eg East Anglia).
pensions man