From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2005 - 10:13:04 GMT
Mark, Nick, Platt n'all,
So we're back to the age old question - as Platt points out - how do you
know truth when you see it.
With the whole of politics and democracy now as our subject, my reaction is
closer to Horse's - can we change the subject, please ?. When I got all
wound up six months ago it was because the topic was endless "deist
religion". Politics and religion just have too many snags, and real life
experience of them has so much complexity and so few fixed points that
debate of this kind is pointless - unlikely any one of us will learn
anything in a free forum like this.
I suggest if we want to anaylse truth (in politics, say) it would make more
sense to start with a simple sub-set of the problem first - as Platt
suggested.
How about that simple statement.
"I did not have sex with that woman"
(rather than the pejorative claim "Democracy is a con")
The former is pure quality - two people, one interaction.
The latter is provocative, true, but like debating life, the universe and
everything - ie it needs good jokes and millions of words.
(ie forget the doctrines, parties, institutions, etc.)
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" < >
To: < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: MD newsflash: it's all a con
> Hi gav, adam, nick, platt, and all,
>
> Gav, great post and followup. Thanks.
>
> As one who is guilty of keeping the political pot boiling here, I
> should answer your question about why I spend so much time stirring
> and stirring. I certainly do not do it in hopes of changing
> already calcified minds. I stir to test my own understanding of my
> own ideas. The other reason for stirring is that of Whitman's
> noiseless, patient spider, who keeps launching forth his filament,
> expecting it to catch, somewhere. The words I write are my filament;
> if they catch someone and cause a quality latch-up, then the spinning
> can begin, and there's a chance that things might become better.
> Quality is served.
>
> I agree with both you and Adam that the political game behind the
> ideology of "Democracy" is a con game, a shake-down, a farce. But
> this isn't some law of nature; this sham is the result of real
> policies instituted by real people for their own real benefit. As
> such, the sham can be exposed and even eliminated, and government may
> indeed become more truly representative of the majority of the
> people. Our discussion and actions may prove futile, but the choice
> is really this: Do something, and maybe things will get better; do
> nothing, and things will certainly get worse.
>
> Some brief comments interspersed below.
>
> On 25 Jan 2005 at 13:59, gav wrote:
>
> i think i need to reply to adam and nick's very
> reasonable points.
>
> firstly nick: i wasn't just talking about 'democracy'. i am actually
> an ardent fan of direct democracy: in the family,
> school, workplace, community, but the concept of
> democracy that we are actually talking of here is
> really 'representative oligarchy', the modern western
> mode of government, which is i believe a con, first
> and foremost cos it ain't democratic (ie the people do
> not rule themsleves).
>
> msh says:
> Yep.
>
> gav:
> you may think that i am splitting hairs but i think reclaiming the
> actual meaning of the word is necessary if we are to use it at all,
> otherwise we are just dealing in propaganda. so i don't think
> democracy is a con; i think representative oligarchies are a con
> (regardless of the ideologies involved).
>
> msh says:
> Yes, and we'll never be able to reclaim the word "democracy" if we
> don't reveal it in its fraudulent forms. This is why it is important
> to keep the discussion going wherever and whenever possible, even if
> it means we don't get invited to parties. :-)
>
> gav:
> i had the pleasure recently of living in an autonomous
> community in southern spain for a month. this village
> of mostly british expats was more or less independent
> of the state apparatus, like the anarchist spanish had
> been 70 years earlier in the same region. for two
> years or so, in the 30s, whole tracts of spain were
> autonomous and truly democratic. no
> gods/kings/politicians lorded over them. unfortunately
> (due to the curious cooperation of supposedly
> oppositional ideologues from germany and russia) it
> didn't last and over the next four decades most of the
> radicals were rooted out and executed. strange now
> that their spirit lives on in these ex-pat brits,
> escapees themselves from the banal tyranny in their
> own homeland.
>
> msh says:
> Yes. I mentioned this in a post to Sam. Anyone interested in the
> anarchists of the Spanish Revolution might well enjoy and learn from
> Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia."
>
> gav:
> the point: we have *never* needed politicians, kings
> or popes. to be ruled is to be a slave. slavery is
> slavery no matter how you dress it up. worst of all
> perhaps is the willing slave. doesn't the english
> anthem make you sick? 'long to reign over us...'
>
> msh says:
> Yep.
>
> gav:
> now the really impressive bit is the masterful
> trickery necessary to convince 99.99% of humanity, for
> thousands of years, that you *do* need masters.
> how has it been pulled off? here we get to adam:
>
> there is only one way to pull such an amazing feat:
> you have to control reality. you have to have a
> monopoly on reality and pump that sole reality into
> the 'cattle' consistently,
>
> msh says:
> Yep. Start with Chomsky-Herman's "Manufacturing Consent", and read
> all documentation backward to the start of the 20th century.
> Everything you'll learn applies forward to now.
>
> gav continues:
> lest they start to wake up and construct their own. of course cracks
> always appear in this monoreality and lately these cracks
> have widened, due to the internet for one.
>
> msh says:
> Yes. But even the internet is under attack. Also, we should
> remember that the strength of the internet is also its weakness,
> which is that anyone can publish anything there, at least for now.
>
> gav goes on:
> controlling reality is a big task and requires a
> shitload of coordination. this is where the secret
> societies like the masons come in...it is quite
> simple: if you have a hierarchical (pyramidal) power
> structure (and we always have) then you need only
> control the very top people in diverse areas to
> control reality. eg nearly all US presidents, from
> washington onwards, have been masons.
>
> msh says:
> Well, my own feeling is that focusing on the Masons, or the Skull and
> Bones, or any other "secret" society sort of feeds into the somewhat
> childish interest in a scary bedtime story. It's entertaining, but
> it is also distracting us from real problem analysis. Forget the
> Masons, the Skulls, the Oswalds... There are plenty of very real
> villains around, and they are as tangible as the CEOs, Directors, and
> major stockholders of the Fortune 100. Let's not invent goblins;
> let's get after the ones that are real.
>
> Best to all, and keep the pot boiling,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
> We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 25 2005 - 11:07:47 GMT