2012 Re-Birth "Re_naissance"

[Birch]

Imagine the outrage if people found out that slaves were picking the crops in some western countries?

 

It's IMO hard enough to face corruption in one's own city or industry right here where we live.

 

Yes, it's weird. How/why does it happen?

[voidisyinyang]

Imagine the outrage if people found out that slaves were picking the crops in some western countries?

 

It's IMO hard enough to face corruption in one's own city or industry right here where we live.

 

Yes, it's weird. How/why does it happen?

 

Here's how it happens -- politics. Most people are afraid to be "activists" because they will be branded as trouble makers or "guilt trippers" or dirty hippies or whatever so then the corporate activist lobbyists take over with secret deals - check out ALEC promoting slave labor in the U.S. via prison labor and privatized prisons profiting from more people put in jail...

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/5/new_expos_tracks_alec_private_prison

 

Well, as we saw already in Wisconsin, you see now prison labor replacing, you know, unionized public workers, where the prison labor, you know, working in road crews in Racine, Wisconsin, is not getting paid anything. So we’re seeing that come in. We’re seeing factories close down in this country that were employing unionized prison labor, and instead we’re now shifting to prison labor. For instance, in the state of Florida, the largest printing company is Prison Industries. So, now there’s not even a market anymore. So we’re seeing increasingly American workers having to not compete just against Chinese labor that’s forced and exploited, but forced and exploited labor in this own country.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we have to break, and then we’re going to go back to another story in New Orleans, but we’ve just been talking about the processing of meat. Talk about the story from 2005 around prisoners and meat.

 

MIKE ELK: My co-author, Bob Sloan, who’s an ex-offender, who actually worked in Prison Industries and has dedicated his life to unveiling, you know, the tragedy of Prison Industries, showed how ATL Industries, back in 2005, had 14 million pounds of beef that they knew was infected with rat feces. Now, many people raised the alarms, and they were even trying to pressure ATL Industries to recall the beef. However, the USDA wouldn’t let them recall the beef, even through a voluntary recall, because they didn’t want to draw attention to how much meat and how many other products in this country are being made by prison labor. So, we have an industry, prison labor, for example, in '95, the U.S. government passed a law, the federal government, that now the regulating body for Prison Industries is not the Department Justice, but the National Correctional Industries Association. This is sort of like turning over bank regulation to the American Bankers Association.

 

And now what we’re seeing is the incredible rise of prison labor, where you have prisoners making as much as 20 cents an hour, making everything from the electronic components in guided missiles, that are being used in Libya, to breaded chicken patties that your children are eating at school, to, in fact, maybe even these office chairs we’re sitting in now. We have over 100,000 prisoners employed, working for private corporations. And before the 1990s and ALEC, this did not occur in this country.

Edited January 7, 2012 by fulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

from http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22159-taoism-anarchism/page__p__316349__fromsearch__1entry316349

 

 

One thing that I haven't much seen addressed in Taoism is socio-economics.

 

An interesting economic structure I've only come across recently is Mutualism as favoured by Proudhon, the father of Anarchism.

 

I have yet to find any Proudhon translations, but Bakunin, otherwise the beginning of the Anarchist movements, was essentially socialist (as I realized while writing this, like a yin yang of right leaning libertarianism, and left leaning socialism).

 

 

"Deep in his heart every worker aspires to a full life, of material well being and intellectual development, based on justice or equality for every human being longing to live and work in an environment of freedom."

-Bakunin, 1869

 

 

Part of Anarchism's raison d'etre is for freedom of the workers.

 

 

So how do people work at equal pays for mutually owned companies?

 

Close consensus among partners in small groups...

 

Right now it's small groups of people employing other people when the company has gotten beyond the capacity for consensus.

 

Anarchism should function without government; so, the "grass roots" needs to help people start small start-ups, and maybe take a small percentage to keep their own work circulating. I just don't think large corporations can fully exist with Anarchist principles. There isn't that much consensus.

 

People have to open their businesses together and become equal partners on smaller ventures and hopefully the inspiration will catch on and more people will be able to do it.

 

Equal contribution is needed for equal pay, so I guess it would be done in percentages.

 

 

At huge levels of co-operation, there has to be leaders with authority. I guess they have to be pinnacles of virtue, truly "sons of heaven" who keep the Tao in order

and harmony while nurturing and allowing the smaller organic entities (Feng Shui could be well employed in modern enterprise) to flourish in harmony with the rest of the garden.

 

What we need is a national gardener to help plant and nurture the social garden; keeping weeds and destructive foliage from ruining the rest, while allowing everything to grow as unimpeded as possible. Right now it's like squirrels and racoons are the only ones tending to the garden.

 

This marriage of right and left is the yin & yang of economics I think... hmmmm.. never thought of that...

 

 

"I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation"

-Bakunin

[voidisyinyang]

from http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22159-taoism-anarchism/page__p__316349__fromsearch__1entry316349

 

 

One thing that I haven't much seen addressed in Taoism is socio-economics.

 

An interesting economic structure I've only come across recently is Mutualism as favoured by Proudhon, the father of Anarchism.

 

I have yet to find any Proudhon translations, but Bakunin, otherwise the beginning of the Anarchist movements, was essentially socialist (as I realized while writing this, like a yin yang of right leaning libertarianism, and left leaning socialism).

 

 

"Deep in his heart every worker aspires to a full life, of material well being and intellectual development, based on justice or equality for every human being longing to live and work in an environment of freedom."

-Bakunin, 1869

 

 

Part of Anarchism's raison d'etre is for freedom of the workers.

 

 

So how do people work at equal pays for mutually owned companies?

 

Close consensus among partners in small groups...

 

Right now it's small groups of people employing other people when the company has gotten beyond the capacity for consensus.

 

Anarchism should function without government; so, the "grass roots" needs to help people start small start-ups, and maybe take a small percentage to keep their own work circulating. I just don't think large corporations can fully exist with Anarchist principles. There isn't that much consensus.

 

People have to open their businesses together and become equal partners on smaller ventures and hopefully the inspiration will catch on and more people will be able to do it.

 

Equal contribution is needed for equal pay, so I guess it would be done in percentages.

 

 

At huge levels of co-operation, there has to be leaders with authority. I guess they have to be pinnacles of virtue, truly "sons of heaven" who keep the Tao in order

and harmony while nurturing and allowing the smaller organic entities (Feng Shui could be well employed in modern enterprise) to flourish in harmony with the rest of the garden.

 

What we need is a national gardener to help plant and nurture the social garden; keeping weeds and destructive foliage from ruining the rest, while allowing everything to grow as unimpeded as possible. Right now it's like squirrels and racoons are the only ones tending to the garden.

 

This marriage of right and left is the yin & yang of economics I think... hmmmm.. never thought of that...

 

 

"I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation"

-Bakunin

 

A little further digging and you'll discover Bakunin was into the occult and Freemasonry. I go into esoteric politics a lot in my research -- synarchy is what you really want to learn about. Read the book "The Stargate Conspiracy" by Prince and Picknett and then their follow up on it is pretty good -- the Sion Revelation I think it's called.

 

Anyway there was a Russian spiritualist movement that I found more favorable to even the anarchists -- the name slips me but I mentioned them in one of my pamphlets back in the day. Essentially eschewing modernist philosophy - the big problem with Marx was he was against the traditional peasant and now we are learning about "indigenous technical knowledge" -- i.e. Vandana Shiva and ecofeminism -- which is really about ecospirituality -- how Nature is female and can not be conquered and how there is an ancient matrilineal and matrifocal horticulture based food system with vast intricate sophisticated knowledge that has high production and is sustainable, etc.

 

Helena Norberg Hodge is good on this -- her work in Ladakh -- but it's really a global movement - http://linktv.org covers it well -- so organic farming and various local economies -- and the new "biomimicry" movement to design industrial systems to mimic nature. But this still is up against Cargill and Monsanto -- and actually the basic concept is that Nature can be "contained" and "engineered" to be improved - and that a price can be put on Nature so that it can be bought and sold freely -- as long as it reflects true "market" price, etc. I mean the brain of the planet -- the Amazon -- is being replaced with monocultural soybeans -- and now the latest scientific report pondering how global warming induced by humans will put off the next ice age. Yeah rational thinking is actually dependent on the supercomputers being in control - the technology has taken over -- humans are turned into passive automatons. So anarchism is not radical enough -- it is a Western philosophy -- Rudy Rocker wrote a definitive book on it as did Daniel Guernin. I've corresponded with Noam Chomsky and studied his work as he is the best source of anarcho-syndicalism. Obviously these types of decentralism cooperative markets are crucial to the future and I've been active in the cooperative organic movement and the political struggles in the anarchist movement but the movement is also completely rationally based and against new age woo woo and pro-technology. So the EArth First! movement that is anarchist -- everyone was getting cell phones when they became trendy and then the FBI just monitored and tracked everyone's cell phones during the big RNC scam -- preemptive arrests. And now the new "indefinite detentive" law in the U.S. is official corporate fascism.

 

So in my opinion Mother Nature will win in the end - if humans do nothing -- if there is no social movement -- MOther Nature will take over. The algae and bacteria and fungi will start ecology over again after what ever nuclear meltdowns and depleted uranium deluge and all else hits everyone. I've been arrested too many times already protesting and confronting judges about this stuff and organizing campaigns against slave labor, etc. and then people just claim that I want the limelight. haha. It is truly hilarious -- anything to do with politics is too materialistic as the power struggles are defined by closed geometric territory.

 

Humans as primates are originally from the forest and vision is not the dominant perception in the forest -- rather sound is. So real justice means to be blind -- justice is blind. Just Sit is real Justice. haha. Just sit and listen and then the truth is revealed. So the injustice is much deeper than modernity realizes -- and the ecofeminists like Vandana Shiva and Helena Norberge-Hodge were attacked by economist Doug Henwood -- but then he is more of a Marxist than an anarchist. haha. Or you get leftists -- they are basically secularists in the anarchist scene. Techno-feminists. And who can blame them? Because the problem is physiological -- the physiology of males. haha.

 

Too many ideas and not enough body transformation.

[joeblast]

 

At huge levels of co-operation, there has to be leaders with authority. I guess they have to be pinnacles of virtue, truly "sons of heaven" who keep the Tao in order

and harmony while nurturing and allowing the smaller organic entities (Feng Shui could be well employed in modern enterprise) to flourish in harmony with the rest of the garden.

and therein lies the limiting factor of anarchy - it is simply not scalable. and good luck keeping charlatans out of politics

[Harmonious Emptiness]

and therein lies the limiting factor of anarchy - it is simply not scalable. and good luck keeping charlatans out of politics

 

Well, the thing is, that when it is put into practice on smaller scales, it can influence the larger operation in policies and values, and lead to protecting the smaller scales. So if more autonomous actions were taken, then the values of people would change and larger scales will have to honour those values in the way they interact as well. Anarchism to me is more of a value system than a political system, but those values of course transfer into politics eventually.

 

I really think people are afraid to assemble in these smaller groups, like there is already someone standing there with a club saying "don't even try" which maybe there is, but who is it? and how are they even heard before they're seen?

 

@ FL, thanks for your response. I think the above addresses your response as well.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[voidisyinyang]

Well, the thing is, that when it is put into practice on smaller scales, it can influence the larger operation in policies and values, and lead to protecting the smaller scales. So if more autonomous actions were taken, then the values of people would change and larger scales will have to honour those values in the way they interact as well. Anarchism to me is more of a value system than a political system, but those values of course transfer into politics eventually.

 

I really think people are afraid to assemble in these smaller groups, like there is already someone standing there with a club saying "don't even try" which maybe there is, but who is it? and how are they even heard before they're seen?

 

@ FL, thanks for your response. I think the above addresses your response as well.

 

yeah on cooperation as being the dominant form in ecology -- as was argued by Proudhon -- check out Lynn Margulis on symbiosis. She just passed on but she did amazing work that remained controversial - arguing mutualism was the main force in evolution -- not competition.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

definitely a combination of "elements" is what creates evolutions

 

 

Here's something that could make huge changes with enough people behind it:

 

"5/11/2011--Introduced.Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana." Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-nine tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Deems Cannabis sativa L. to meet that concentration limit if a person grows or processes it for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with state law.."

 

Ron Paul Signed Original Copy of Hemp Farm Bill H.R. 1831 on Hemp Paper plus Pen on Ebay for $720

 

Considering what an average backyard full of hemp would be worth, harvesting it 3 times a year and requiring minimal attention or land quality in US climates.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I have a thought for the first page about cultural fusion into the west.

 

 

It's ground zero for the corporate culture control.

 

 

Just food for thought, even though i know it wont help anyone feed themselves, sorry!

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I have a thought for the first page about cultural fusion into the west.

 

 

It's ground zero for the corporate culture control.

 

 

Just food for thought, even though i know it wont help anyone feed themselves, sorry!

 

Yeah, I think cultural fusion is fine and great as long as it becomes a separate culture rather than overtaking each separate one. What culture isn't a cultural fusion anyways?

[Owledge]

Quoting Günther Jauch: "Television makes stupid people more stupid and smart people smarter."

 

Apply that to any of the new means of communication.

 

It is much easier to educate yourself, to help humankind progress, but it's also much easier to dumb people down and deceive on a mass scale. There are changes happening. But there are also basic things that aren't changing. I think there's a lot of wishful thinking going on. Maybe it's needed to get to work, because if you knew how little changes, you'd not even bother beginning it.

 

One repeating pattern I see when people are talking about the future is to point out certain things like they are a novelty, when in fact they existed for a long time.

Or when people are saying stuff like: "Clearly the world is nearing a crisis." Well, I only see that the world is always nearing some kind of crisis, or coming out of it, or being in it, or far away of it. All depends on how you view at it.

Some people say: Thanks goodness, slavery has been abolished!". Others say: "No, there's actually more slavery today than ever before!" Well, how do you measure that? Absolute numbers of some kind? Human poulation is growing. Many people suck at statistics.

Maybe humankind is still struggling with the same issues for half an eternity, because the thinking patterns are still there. And don't feel oh-so progressive. There have always been very spiritual, very educated, very progressive people. There has always been a dumb pseudo-majority. There has always been a suppressed, fearful majority. What's really new?

Also, regarding the talks about technological advance: How do you measure technology? Is there a unit? If not, then how can you say it is growing exponentially or ever faster or whatever? Could it be that the so-called revolutions in technology today have less impact and relevance than those back then? How to measure this? And then again... how is relevance measured? There are thousands of ways to do that. Which one is valid?

There's a lot of claptrap going on.

 

Taoism says there are cycles. Ups and downs. That probably sums it up quite well. The wider your view on human history, the more things stay the same, while a narrower view will show more 'spikes in the graph'. Even Al Gore deceived people who didn't realize this.

 

Closer to the initial posting - rebirth is an arbitrary concept. When does it start? What is part of it and what is not? Aren't things changing all the time? Isn't everything in flow? Just dump the rebirth idea and do what you think is right. That's what everybody is doing all the time anyway.

 

 

@fullotus

"the glaciers are melting." - some are. Some are growing. And on average there are cycles.

 

Then that Strogatz quote:

"When the End of Insight comes, the nature of explanation in science will change forever. We'll be stuck in an age of authoritarianism, except it'll no longer be coming from politics or religious dogma, but from science itself."

 

Full of concepts and exclusives. Written in capitals, the "End of Insight". When it comes. It's not there yet. Still some insight left. But when it comes, then the "nature" of explanation in science will change. And not only that, it will change "forever". Because that sounds more dramatic. Then we'll be stuck not with the ordinary authoritarianism that we have all over the world right now, but then it will be an "age". Because that sounds more dramatic. And what does "stuck with" mean anyway? And isn't it a nice thing that authoritarianism will no longer come from politics or religious dogma? That's so awesome, I can hardly believe it. Well, then it'll be coming from science itself. Isn't that already true? Well, I guess it depends on where you draw your arbitrary distinction of science vs. politics.

 

I also like the Idea of new forms of criminal charge, as in:

 

Judge- "You sir are found Guilty of Crimes against the Earth"

I like the idea of less criminal charges. The line above could be the result of a president Al Gore's eco-gestapo.

 

we are in a world of competition, i choose only to compete against myself.

For all we know, we live in a world of everything, since it's the only "world" we know, and everything is in it. And why should I compete with myself? What does that even mean?

 

you sat in full lotus for 9 hours? awesome!

I once lay on a couch for 10 hours and didn't even do anything. Try that!

 

Considering what an average backyard full of hemp would be worth, harvesting it 3 times a year and requiring minimal attention or land quality in US climates.

Are you applying current black market prices to a hypothetic world in which you can grow hemp in your back yard?

 

 

...

 

 

Ok, now that that's said... Any idea to have success needs participants. In a way we already know what is good and what is bad (those things where all people can agree on). Convinving people of something that is beneficial to them usually only has one barrier: fear. Fear of all kinds. See which fear poses an obstacle and then try to neutralize it; don't feed it. And if someone clings to their fears fiercely, stop trying. You will only get angry and/or bitter.

 

One thing that's also an obstacle for people trying to find support is focusing on an expected outcome. You cannot control most of the things going on, so when you focus on an outcome and you don't achieve it, again, you get bitter/angry. Pragmatism is not sincerity. If you can be yourself and live according to your convictions, you don't need to set fixed goals. This is even expressed in that old saying "The path is the goal."

Edited January 13, 2012 by Owledge

[voidisyinyang]

[Owledge]

The claim that "some glaciers are growing" has been debunked as some sort of excuse that global warming isn't real. But I'm glad you've mentioned this -- as the levels of denial about the ecological crisis are amazingly deep -- the propaganda and excuses are amazing.

 

http://naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com/2011/10/extreme-ice-doc-how-planets-ice-is.html

 

I blogged on this myth about "some glaciers are growing" therefore... blah blah.

I'm not sure whether that's the only origin of the statement, and even if it is, OK, then currently maybe there is not a single glacier that is growing, but at least one that is not shrinking?

There's still so much deception and manipulation going on regarding the whole climate thing that getting excited over supposed threats to humanity might cause more harm than good.

And there is another arbitrary human concept: "ecological crisis". Because helping nature is not dramatic enough. Now it's the crisis. What makes the crisis and when was before the crisis? And who determines what is crisis and what not?

 

It's the age-old game of controlling people by instilling fear. It's repeating all the time, and each time there is a new generation who hasn't had experience with it and so still works and is used.

 

More in detail, the idea of self-amplifying feedback loops in the ecological system makes no sense considering how well it avoids going rampant all the time, because there are many factors in the system, and humans are a part of it, and really not the only factor that can be considered harmful and destructive. Al Gore used the feedback-loop-idea as an explanation why CO2 changes happen after temperature changes, but it still made no sense, especially when even other climate alarmists contradicted Al Gore with their own theories. But there's a super-powerful self-regulating mechanism consisting of the sun and water vapor and the planet being a half-open system with huge amounts of input from space and output into space.

People focus so much on the negative stuff, but there's a negative side to anything. Very unbalanced. A single person acting about a minor issue like that would be dissed for being so extremely pessimistic, but on a grand scale it is accepted.

There are, by the way, feedback loops in people, when they only look at that which serves their own cause. Then they don't have a balancing influence for buffering. But nature doesn't pick some factors and dumps others. They're all there, working in concert.

 

Any approach, any mindset that can be politically hijacked for ulterior motives, is not a reliable one for improving living conditions. The most powerful change happens at the basics of human needs, direct and without visions or philosophies. Anything that builds up an emotional attachment to some kind of personal relevance in the world can be hijacked.

 

Maybe humankind could use a lot more yin in approach, but even good-meaning projects for initiating revolutionary change bear the potential of becoming confrontational and thus very yang-like.

 

A bit poetically speaking, people tend to perceive the world around them based on their own mindset; So maybe it's not the planet that needs cooling, but people need to cool down.

[voidisyinyang]

I'm not sure whether that's the only origin of the statement, and even if it is, OK, then currently maybe there is not a single glacier that is growing, but at least one that is not shrinking?

There's still so much deception and manipulation going on regarding the whole climate thing that getting excited over supposed threats to humanity might cause more harm than good.

And there is another arbitrary human concept: "ecological crisis". Because helping nature is not dramatic enough. Now it's the crisis. What makes the crisis and when was before the crisis? And who determines what is crisis and what not?

 

It's the age-old game of controlling people by instilling fear. It's repeating all the time, and each time there is a new generation who hasn't had experience with it and so still works and is used.

 

More in detail, the idea of self-amplifying feedback loops in the ecological system makes no sense considering how well it avoids going rampant all the time, because there are many factors in the system, and humans are a part of it, and really not the only factor that can be considered harmful and destructive. Al Gore used the feedback-loop-idea as an explanation why CO2 changes happen after temperature changes, but it still made no sense, especially when even other climate alarmists contradicted Al Gore with their own theories. But there's a super-powerful self-regulating mechanism consisting of the sun and water vapor and the planet being a half-open system with huge amounts of input from space and output into space.

People focus so much on the negative stuff, but there's a negative side to anything. Very unbalanced. A single person acting about a minor issue like that would be dissed for being so extremely pessimistic, but on a grand scale it is accepted.

There are, by the way, feedback loops in people, when they only look at that which serves their own cause. Then they don't have a balancing influence for buffering. But nature doesn't pick some factors and dumps others. They're all there, working in concert.

 

Any approach, any mindset that can be politically hijacked for ulterior motives, is not a reliable one for improving living conditions. The most powerful change happens at the basics of human needs, direct and without visions or philosophies. Anything that builds up an emotional attachment to some kind of personal relevance in the world can be hijacked.

 

Maybe humankind could use a lot more yin in approach, but even good-meaning projects for initiating revolutionary change bear the potential of becoming confrontational and thus very yang-like.

 

A bit poetically speaking, people tend to perceive the world around them based on their own mindset; So maybe it's not the planet that needs cooling, but people need to cool down.

 

 

Yeah the water vapor component is fascinating:

 

The study, published in the journal Science, says a 10 per cent drop in humidity 10 miles above the Earth's surface explains why global temperatures have been stable since the start of the century, despite the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

And a rise in water vapour in the 1980s and 90s may also explain why temperatures shot up so quickly in the previous two decades, they say.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246904/Water-vapour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html#ixzz1jJmFuOoN

 

But not that significant:

 

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate science at the Met Office, said: 'Whatever's causing this change from decade to decade is having an influence at the surface. But it is a small variation on top of the long term increase in manmade greenhouse gases.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246904/Water-vapour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html#ixzz1jJmh65d9

 

But actually I got Al Gore going on his climate change fixation big time:

 

Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:27:15 -0600

From: Drew W Hempel <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Subject: mtg. w/Gore!

 

For Immediate Release

 

March 10, 2000

 

Activists Confront Gore about the U'WA in half-hour mtg.

 

Contact Drew Hempel at [email protected]

 

Rainforest Action Network activists in the Twin Cities Minnesota, on the

night of March 10th, had about a half hour confrontation with Vice

President Gore--a private meeting. that occurred in the basement of the

VFW, just after his campaign speech. The meeting was extremely interesting

since we confronted him on many issues and basically spelled out an

anti-elite democratic vision to Gore. Below is my description of the

event--(I refer to other activists as "another" even though sometimes it

maybe the same person again--names were never ok'd for this breaking news

release. Following the description is further background info. on the

issue). The general protest during his speech was scantily dismissed on

National Public Radio and in the Twin Cities paper--the corporate media

just regurgitated the destructive views of Gore as usual.

 

Upon Arrival at the VFW....The "Speech"

 

"He's a protester, He's one of them!" cried out one of the Gore

campaigners. I was pulled aside by secret service as I approached the

entryway. The secret service dog was enjoying my smelly socks in my

backpack but the man looking through the bag did not even notice the stack

of "Who is Al Gore?" fliers. According to the campaigners, apparently if I

disagree with Gore, I can't go see him. But after promising that I hadn't

handed out the fliers, that I would not yell anything, that I didn't have a

banner, and that I would not hand anything out inside, they let me in. So

much for first amendment rights. The VFW Hall was an intimate gathering of

mainly union people, VFW people, the mayor of Mpls., Senator Wellstone,

Rep. Sabo, Walter Mondale, their partners, and the corporate media.

 

When Gore came out to speak--to the tacky blaring of "We Are Family," there

was about 15 of us protesters inside and along with other "non-protesters"

many soon began yelling stuff. I was yelling it's all "the same corporate

elite" and "what about the U'WA!?" Others yelled "stop killing the U'WA!"

and similar statements about Occidental Petroleum (OXY). Gore said "And

about you protesters out there I'll meet with you afterwards," telling us

to be quiet. Paul Wellstone, the sell-out, looked extremely dismayed. We

continued to cry out, since Gore has ignored the 20 or so previous

confrontations with him about the U'WA. When Gore claimed to want open

meetings with Bush and to challenge Bush, I yelled out, "We

challenge Gore about the U'WA!" The Gore campaigners quickly brought

signs to have people hold up all around us so that we were hidden by the

signs. But since we were right in camera view of Gore, the campaigner had

to then ask that the Gore signs be taken down because the view was blocked

but I raised Gore's book "The Earth in Balance," yelling "Read your Book!"

Two others held up a banner several times before getting ejected from the

VFW hall. When Gore walked out I got to the exit line, shook his hand

saying, "What about the U'WA? What about the meeting?" Media people

surrounded us and I heard Gore saying "I'd meet with you but you didn't

keep up your end of the bargain." Implying we had successfully disrupted

him. But these two media guys claimed he said he'd meet with us. They

were standing next to me and could hear Gore better as he left the room. I

thought, "we'll if they say so," so I quickly looked for the Gore

campaigners and the other protesters.

 

Soon after Gore's assistant came out with the secret service and asked us

to have one leader/spokesperson. She told us this meeting was highly

unprecedented, especially with so many of us. She allowed no media. We

refused to have a leader. We were told to remove jackets, bags, and

potential weapons and we were lead to a backroom to be scanned.

 

The Meeting with GORE about the U'WA

 

We decided that one of us would say a short introduction, stating that two

other people would make brief statements with the second person asking the

question. Having experience with corporate elite at the U of MN, I

predicted that he'd try to control the talk and fill us with

irrelevant information that ignored the issue. After being scanned by

secret service and led to a basement room where about 20 secret service

people stood, about 15 of us waited in a semicircle. Gore came out and

tried to shake our hands. He got to the second person, after shaking the

first hand, but the second refused to do so. So then our introduction

began.

 

Gore, after the first person mentioned the two other coming statements,

interrupted the introduction and tried to go into a long tirade about us,

just as we predicted! I interrupted him and told him to let us finish so

we can ask the question and then I began reading off his connections to

Oxy, as stated in the NY Times ad. He tried to cut me off before the last

connection but I insisted we should just have two more minutes. I

finished then the third person began to speak. She was also cut off by

Gore so I interjected and read, as we had planned to do, the quote from his

book about

the need to protect indigenous peoples.

 

The I asked him if he was going to divest or not? He laid into us about

how we didn't know what a trust was, how his mom was on life support,

how his family had debts, and how legally he couldn't do anything. I

pointed out that slavery was legal too and we stated that it wasn't just

his financial holdings but that he had alot of influence otherwise

especially since the US Aid to Colombia was coming to vote soon. He stated

the Occidental Navy Reserve privatization was an "open bid." Another

asked him if he knew about the Geneva Convention on Genocide. He argued

that the Environmental Minister supported the oil project and that he had

won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Award. He claimed it was

Colombia's choice to drill and that this will help offset their debt and

help stabilize their guerilla and drug problem. Another pointed out that

it's precisely because of that guerilla/drug problem that oil drilling is a

direct threat

to the U'WA. Another stated that Gore could pull strings and asked if Gore

has been to Colombia. He said he hadn't. She stated that she had been to

Colombia and she didn't know how anyone could trust government officials in

Colombia and that "you [Gore] would probably not be safe in Colombia."

 

Confronting Gore on Structural Issues of Corporate Capitalism

 

While he went on about free markets, democracy and the environment, another

person pointed out that the U'WA is a democratic government and how "nice"

that the colonizers gave back some of the land they stole--commenting on a

recent

expansion of U'WA territory that Gore referenced. "What about all the

democratic governments we've overthrown in Latin America?" I asked. He

named two democratic presidents from the 50s but said there were no recent

examples. I asked him, "What about Noreiga and Panama? Did you see the

documentary Panama Deception that was banned from PBS?" He went on about

Colombia being full of Narcotraffickers and guerrillas. I asked him,

"Don't you know about Professor McCoy's book on the CIA? Their complicity

with the global drug trade is well documented." (the secret service seemed

to get edgy about this remark). He stated he's been leading OAS mtgs. to

help promote democracy. I asked him why is it that there is a direct

correlation with increased U.S. aid and an increase in human rights

violations in Latin America. I asked why is it that Colombia is the

highest recipient of U.S. Aid and has become the number one abuser of human

rights.

 

BACK To the U'WA

 

He said he knew the U'WA chief. One of us asked did he think the Chief

liked him. Gore responded well I think so. A latina women stated to Gore

that they were her people, that she could speak for them and so why are

they planning to commit mass suicide? Gore asked is she was U'WA and she

said she was Native American and "shame on you Gore." He tried to counter

her and she commented he was saying lies. Another pointed out that his mom

would be retiring but will have $600 a month social security to live on [in

comparison to Gore's mom]. Another asked "Why can't you transfer the

stocks to another equally profitable company?" Another pointed out that if

he cares so much about the environment did he know that the equivalent of

ten Exxon Valdez oil spills have occurred in Colombia. Gore said that he

didn't know this. Another pointed out that the U'WA are people too and

just as valuable as his life even if he didn't think so. Also that the

U'WA's environment is connected to everyone's environment. Another asked

who had the power to move the stocks and Gore said the trustee did but that

the trustee was legally required to do otherwise--implying he was required

to maximize profits. I pointed out that as a graduate student at the

University we just worked to divest $1.5 million and that citizens are

sovereign not corporations. I stated that we have the right to revoke the

charter of corporations that continuously violate the public good.

 

Others urged him to have the trustee move the stocks and asked him if he

was going to make a public statement. He said we had brought up some

points he hadn't thought of but that we hope he takes in mind the

clarifications [sic.] he made and that the information we've been providing

incorrectly implies he owns personal stock. (but he never specifically

countered our information which states very clearly its family holdings).

Gore stated he decided 26 years ago to never have personal stocks so he

wouldn't have a conflict of interest. The secret service, getting quite

impatient with Gore being put on the defensive for so long, motioned for

him to leave. As he walked off we told him the issue was not going away

and that the suicide of the U'WA would be on his conscience.

 

My Impression of GORE

 

The researcher Hannah Ardent used a term, "the banality of evil." The

issue of the U'WA is only one of many that Gore could be confronted

with--the genocidal war-crime sanctions on Iraq come to mind as well. I

think Gore is evil: he tried to cut us off and manhandle us by berating us

with irrelevant information. He tried to push responsibility onto others

that have less power, he avoided the direct issue. I perceived a lust for

power and disdain for the truth. He hid in ignorance and kissed up to

corruption by trying to hold out his life-support mother as a shield. He

left a wake of cynicism as he left the room, while his presence was

disgusting maybe we got through to him and maybe this information will help

keep the pressure on!

[Seth Ananda]

 

I like the idea of less criminal charges. The line above could be the result of a president Al Gore's eco-gestapo.

 

I would like to see less criminal charges as well, but i think we need an Eco Gestapo for a period.

I want to see total accountability from environment raping CEO's and corporations.

Imagine how much company's would clean up there act if the government started handing out Death sentences for serious crimes against the earth!?

 

I don't support capital punishment of course, but I think what these company's are doing to our planet, Is far worse than what some get life for...

We have destroyed so much.

Here in Aus, we have 2% of our old growth forests left.

 

Its going to have to Stop.

The Stop will have to be drastic.

The Stop will piss people off.

The people will bitch and moan.

Then they will adjust.

 

 

When a criminal does something, normally the effects are Immediate.

And we sentence them.

Corporations are getting away with it because the effects are not immediate. [usually]

But they are helping murder millions of future generations! Is that not genocide?

They are stealing the resources from our grandchildren. Is that not theft?

 

Massive prison sentences will start sorting things out...

Edited January 14, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[Owledge]

I would like to see less criminal charges as well, but i think we need an Eco Gestapo for a period.

Do you realize how much you dropped a clanger there?

[joeblast]

Perhaps I should have put this link here instead

 

http://scienceline.org/2012/01/enter-at-your-own-risk/

 

So Seth, is the eco gestapo going to go after the city of NYC, or will they get a pass just like they do from the EPA, since governments are politically correct entities and if they pollute, well...shit happens - literally! But if its "a corporation" then by george, arrest them all!!! Are you in favor of arresting those NYC administrator responsible and throwing them in jail - and also expending the amount of resources necessary to get past their union?

 

With all due respect, supporting the notion of an eco gestapo (or any sort of gestapo) is fantastically ill considered - you must give this entity a significant amount of power to perform their duty, so once that power is entrenched and corrupted, what then? It simply wasnt conceived of in the original paradigm? Well okay, but that's why it is valuable to logically follow these ideas to their possible ends and consider them before implementing such horrendous state-control ideas. Will this eco gestapo be staffed just like the EPA is staffed? By ideological zealots that want to force their interpretation on everyone, damn whatever downstream effects because we're saving the planet? Sketchy, man. Sketchy. Perhaps they will also be "prohibited from considering costs in their proclamations, like the EPA?

 

 

Anarchism to me is more of a value system than a political system, but those values of course transfer into politics eventually.

Ah, I was wondering how long it was going to be before the "anarchists" started admitting really what it is they're on about Its just a system of values?? It helps to understand what one subscribes to - and if you think Anarchy is but a system of values, then you are but coopting some concept and modifying it to suit your own needs - therefore people who actually do subscribe to the actual definition wont necessarily agree with what you have invented. Sure some of the core concepts are beneficial - but really, some of the core concepts of a lot of philosophies are beneficial, but the devil's in the details always! How does it get implemented? Is it *that* drastic of a change that it will harm the population?

 

yeah on cooperation as being the dominant form in ecology -- as was argued by Proudhon -- check out Lynn Margulis on symbiosis. She just passed on but she did amazing work that remained controversial - arguing mutualism was the main force in evolution -- not competition.

I'd say that is rather like asserting that Yang is the dominant force in the universe - not Yin

 

The claim that "some glaciers are growing" has been debunked as some sort of excuse that global warming isn't real. But I'm glad you've mentioned this -- as the levels of denial about the ecological crisis are amazingly deep -- the propaganda and excuses are amazing.

And the claim that "its all due to global warming" has also been debunked - how has the local ecology changed? how are the local forests doing? (Are you basing this on something the IPCC said in 2007?) Are weather patterns exactly the same? It takes hundreds of years for precipitation to make it down the glacier - they arent going to disappear anywhere near as quickly as an alarmist will tell you.

I think its sad that you seem to think helping Al Gore rape a hundred million bucks peddling garbage science is something to be proud of. That's the problem with activism, lots of the riders simply do it "for the cause" and completely lose the forest for the trees - and refuse to recant when it is shown that their entire premise is rather faulty.

 

If there is indeed an ecological crisis, you cannot blame it on CO2 - if you are, it is only betraying your bias - the climate over the last 20-30 years has largely been flat, ENSO aside. You can see Pinatubo or El Chicon slap that curve right back after some particularly strong el ninos as well - you really have to close your eyes tightly to continue believing the CO2 scam at this point!

Edited January 14, 2012 by joeblast

[Owledge]

About mutualism vs. competition: I think both can cause evolution, it's just that the way it changes people's way of thinking is different:

 

competition: I have to be better than others!

mutualism: Let's help each other improve ourselves!

 

Thus, competition plants the seeds of its evolutionary effect's demise, because a mentality of being better than others will cause destructive tendencies and thus waste resources and cause devolution. And apart from that, competition might be solely focused on evolving in means for competing.

It's like learning: Whatever you do, you get better at.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Perhaps I should have put this link here instead

 

Ah, I was wondering how long it was going to be before the "anarchists" started admitting really what it is they're on about Its just a system of values?? It helps to understand what one subscribes to - and if you think Anarchy is but a system of values, then you are but coopting some concept and modifying it to suit your own needs - therefore people who actually do subscribe to the actual definition wont necessarily agree with what you have invented. Sure some of the core concepts are beneficial - but really, some of the core concepts of a lot of philosophies are beneficial, but the devil's in the details always! How does it get implemented? Is it *that* drastic of a change that it will harm the population?

 

 

Well the thing with Anarchism is that it is basically a philosophical seed that grows out into different branches depending on the soil. So you have anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-mutualism, etc.

The base of all of these is mostly the principle of autonomy and mutual respect.

 

For me, the principles are the main thing, and I think we've seen that change is possible by "soft-power" methods where people change the way they do things and this inspires the society at large. Soft power can still be drastic, but the thing is that it is more gradual and more saturating than using force, since the effect doesn't disappear when the force disappears. When people start to realize that groups function better when afforded their humanity and autonomy, rather than treating everyone like a bunch of inmates, then the changes will seemingly make themselves. Personally, I think very little of the social structure would need to be changed (other than the corruption of course) if the ideals of mutual-respect-and-autonomy were seen in play wherever organization and authority exist.

[joeblast]

About mutualism vs. competition: I think both can cause evolution, it's just that the way it changes people's way of thinking is different:

 

competition: I have to be better than others!

mutualism: Let's help each other improve ourselves!

 

Thus, competition plants the seeds of its evolutionary effect's demise, because a mentality of being better than others will cause destructive tendencies and thus waste resources and cause devolution. And apart from that, competition might be solely focused on evolving in means for competing.

It's like learning: Whatever you do, you get better at.

What I'm curious of is how/why people are viewing the two as mutually exclusive - they are not! How is it to your detriment if I do as well as possible? (Excluding of course notions of jealousy and what not, that's about the only thing I can honestly attribute it to.)

 

Well the thing with Anarchism is that it is basically a philosophical seed that grows out into different branches depending on the soil. So you have anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-mutualism, etc.

The base of all of these is mostly the principle of autonomy and mutual respect.

 

For me, the principles are the main thing, and I think we've seen that change is possible by "soft-power" methods where people change the way they do things and this inspires the society at large. Soft power can still be drastic, but the thing is that it is more gradual and more saturating than using force, since the effect doesn't disappear when the force disappears. When people start to realize that groups function better when afforded their humanity and autonomy, rather than treating everyone like a bunch of inmates, then the changes will seemingly make themselves. Personally, I think very little of the social structure would need to be changed (other than the corruption of course) if the ideals of mutual-respect-and-autonomy were seen in play wherever organization and authority exist.

Yes, I think people need to be taught self reliance and mutual respect also

[Owledge]

What I'm curious of is how/why people are viewing the two as mutually exclusive - they are not! How is it to your detriment if I do as well as possible? (Excluding of course notions of jealousy and what not, that's about the only thing I can honestly attribute it to.)

Well, competition is based on being better than others, so by wanting to follow that mentality (= making it prevail), you become afraid of others being better than you. That's the whole point; that's what drives competition-based evolution in the first place. And this fear will cause destructive tendencies. An as can be seen in reality, a competitor who is far beyond others won't be less afraid because of the emotional attachment. He has a lot more to lose now and has to fear that other competitors will eventually copy his methods and then he won't have an advantage anymore. This can also lead to the opposite of an original positive purpose, namely stagnation, because a competitor will hold back advances for as long as they are not required to stay ahead of the competition.

So you see, the whole thing is harmful. As I said, short-term advantages might occur, but they're bought for a high price that has to be paid later.

 

And about mutually exclusive: You can't cooperate with people when there are other people who follow the road of competition, because they will try to kick you out of it and could coerce cooperative people into the competition game. This also shows that competition is a low-vibration phenomenon. Being afraid requires less effort than being courageous. And the more afraid some people are, the more courageous others have to be to not succumb to the same fear-game.

You can even see it in reality how the people with the least scruples define the way for others. Either you succumb to the same level of malice or you are out. The only thing that can break this is consumers (people as a whole) shunning destructive methods, but usually they're mesmerized by 'low price' and stuff like that, which boils down to being corrupted. ("I know you are stealing, but if you give me some of the stolen goods, I'm in.")

Edited January 15, 2012 by Owledge

[joeblast]

Were you trying to rationalize that, or is that what you believe? Competition doesnt always mean I win, you lose. A lot of the time it means my outcome is simply a little better, its all relative. Competition is the yang that drives forth to excel, when the ego is in too much control and has these worries is when competition is driven by fear, which doesnt need to be how it happens.

[Owledge]

Competition doesnt always mean I win, you lose. A lot of the time it means my outcome is simply a little better

That's the same. There's that saying, roughly "The better is the enemy of the good". If A is better than B, A will eventually oust B. Maybe there would be no negative impact if B didn't have any investment in their approach, but in a competition-based system, that is the case, because without an investment, there couldn't be any competition in the first place.

The idea of evolution through competition is getting people to act by threatening them.

 

The only exception probably is when one person plays with ideas and lets them compete against each other, but then it's not really competition in the sense of inter-personal dynamics.

 

All I can say is that I'm getting more and more practice with digging down to the core of things, so this is not just a convenient personal viewpoint, but a deep and ongoing analysis using all my understanding of spirituality, psychology, sociology and others.

When you reach a certain depth of understanding, many things become apparent easily, because many things are just branches of the same root. You don't have to dig each time, you just have to look up.

 

I'm not suggesting, though, that the world could work without any fear. This would be getting too philosophical and unpredictable, but competition surely has a purpose in our universe, from a taoist perspective. But I think evolution can happen without it, just differently.

Here's an allegory to clarify it:

It is a myth that people will hang around being lazy when they are not forced to get a job. Children prove it wrong. They are full of curiosity and activity, they are explorers and adventurers. But those tendencies can be disturbed or even totally ruined by 'the adult world' that is very fear-stricken.

So in theory leave a society to children and there won't be stagnation, but invention, exploration, philosophy and a lot more. I think I already mentioned this child-factor in our world in another thread. There are practical examples for this; for healthy people not needing any external, man-made incentive or idea of competition.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Owledge

[joeblast]

I respectfully disagree with the equivalence Chef Boy-ar-dee hasnt taken out Betty Crocker, nor will he no matter how many tricks he has up his sleeve How can there be two hamburger joints in a town? Lowe's & Home Depot in the same town even - not to mention the mom & pop specialty hardware store. Oh yeah, there's two HD's in town, even. They all do well - how can this be?

 

Then again, good luck trying a BBQ place, Chris has the market cornered on that here - you're welcome to try but the dude is an absolutely amazing chef