Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates

Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates


How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have ha=
ng-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And no=
w the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civilisa=
tion

Arundhati Roy
Wednesday April 2, 2003
The Guardian

On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl =
colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Po=
sse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A=
child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.

On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal =
invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewe=
d an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Privat=
e AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort =
of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Ir=
aqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage to=
ngue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's =
way over my head," he said.

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American =
public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the Septemb=
er 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news p=
oll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly=
supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these=
fabrications is anybody's guess.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4638796,00.html

Comments

, alexandra reill

yes marc, i was feeling this when listening to the news this morning … it=
's so sad

love, a
—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates


Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates


How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have =
hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And =
now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civili=
sation

Arundhati Roy
Wednesday April 2, 2003
The Guardian

On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scraw=
l colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy =
Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy.=
A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.

On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illega=
l invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent intervie=
wed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Priv=
ate AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sor=
t of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the =
Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage =
tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff'=
s way over my head," he said.

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the America=
n public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the Septe=
mber 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news=
poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein direct=
ly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe the=
se fabrications is anybody's guess.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4638796,00.html

, Eryk Salvaggio

The other day I was in a gas station waiting for a pizza and there was this=
one guy who mumbled when he talked and he was talking to the deli manager =
[I'm in Maine- our gas stations are supermarkets] and the guy was pretty ol=
d and unshaven and had two packs of beer with him. And he was talking about=
how it was alright for us to bomb innocents over there because they came o=
ver here to bomb our innocents. Specifically, he said, "Who was in the worl=
d trade center? Is that a military target? You tell me, is that a military =
target?" He pressed the deli guy for an answer- something I can't stand in =
conversation, when an obviously rhetorical question gets pushed for an answ=
er.
The deli guy says no. And the other guy says that we ought to go over there=
and "pave the whole god damned middle east."

Yesterday on the way home from a class, I stumbled around for talk radio an=
d it turned out to be the Christian Radio Network. One guy, who called in t=
o the radio talk show, was saying how he hopes the Bush administration "get=
s it right" and stops talking about how Islam is a religion on par with Chr=
istianity, and that he hopes that the Bush administration will stop pretend=
ing that is true, and that Islam is a religion of peace. He says he hopes w=
e put the Iraqi Christian Minority in charge of the country.

So usually I wander around with indictments of these people in my head. I w=
ould never say anything to the guy in the gas station, but I like to think =
I would point out that "innocent" means "having nothing to do with" and the=
refore bombing innocents in retaliation for our innocents being bombed make=
s no sense at all. But I didn't. And it agitated me for a while until the r=
adio caller came on, and I just turned the radio off, because here's someth=
ing that matters more than any poll numbers about American ignorance or any=
arguments I have with work about the war- they don't matter, they're opini=
ons, and no one has any power to do anything about thier opinions. We sit a=
round and we comment, like a gaggle of commenting machines, we make notes i=
n our heads of who we agree with and who we don't. Maybe you go to a protes=
t- as if they accomplish anything, since I would say 20% of the people at a=
ny protest are there for what I would call "stupid" ie, uneducated, reasons=
. I mean just because someone is against the war it doesn't mean they're in=
formed. And whether or not someone is informed, and the overall number of p=
eople who are informed, has nothing to do with how long this war will last,=
how many people will die, or how the country will be run if/after Saddam i=
s toppled.

There are ways, of course, to make your information matter. But it doesn't =
involve calling the white house to voice your opinion- for one, anti-war se=
ntiment is the minority, for two, if it was the majority it wouldn't matter=
. We act as if knowledge solves things, it doesn't, application- and physic=
al interaction with the world- "solves" things, and even that is questionab=
le. Here are some ways you can actually impact the war. It isn't all of the=
m however.

+++

1. Run for office and get elected. The key word is to get elected. So calle=
d spoiler candidates are just people like you and me who have half of the e=
nergy it takes to get into office, but not enough to actually do it. If you=
want to win, you will have to put aside your own convictions and reflect t=
he poll numbers and hope you win the coin toss that is election day. Once i=
n office, you will have to make tons of compromises, and perhaps work for s=
everal years- maybe even get re-elected- until you will be taken seriously =
enough to pass a proposal for legislation that gets out of committee. Once =
that happens, you will have to use force and determination- as well as work=
ing the political back rub system- to get the bill passed. In twenty years =
or so you might- might- even be in position to run for president, at which =
point you can make good use of your education about the horrors of war. =


2. Sign up to be a soldier. If you get sent to Iraq, make sure that you tak=
e extra precautions not to kill civilians, and try to generate a culture of=
respect for life and the enemy within your combat battalion. Learn Arabic,=
and every time you are in a city, discuss your views with the population y=
ou have "liberated" about how you aren't really doing that, and what this w=
ar is really about. But that you signed up for the marines/army anyway in o=
rder to make sure that as few people got killed as was possible, and that y=
ou have a personal commitment to never pull a trigger.

3. Fly to Egypt, then go to an Iraqi Embassy, and volunteer your services a=
s a human shield. Plenty of people are doing this- some of them French and =
American, as far as I know, and I would assume English as well. If accepted=
- you would be, by the way- pick an area and publicize your location, Have =
you noticed how many human shield locations are mentioned on CNN and the we=
stern media? Yeah, me neither. But you will be there, having an actual impa=
ct on the war.

+++

You will notice that I have not included "protest" as an effective means of=
stopping the war. That is because it isn't, and it never has been. Protest=
is a nice way to feel solidarity and surround yourself with people who are=
not the powerless radio call in guy or the powerless guy in a gas station =
deli talking to a deli manager about his opinions, and surround yourself wi=
th powerless people who believe in the same things you believe so that you =
don't have to hear opinions you don't agree with. I think protests are nice=
in that sort of primal chanting sort of way, I mean solidarity is a good f=
eeling, and a lot of very nice people are at protests and I agree with ever=
y sentiment expressed at them. But they are not an effective means of polit=
ical change. If the 10,000 protesters wanted to affect change, they would g=
o to Iraq. And I am not saying "send all the protesters to Iraq and see how=
the like it there." I am saying 10,000 people in the American army fightin=
g a war with Iraq who are dedicated to never killing anyone would have an i=
mpact. 10,000 humans [aka "Western Humans"] working as shields around Baghd=
ad would maybe make a difference. But 10,000 people at a traffic circle or =
getting arrested in San Francisco has no impact except to give people like =
me a short rise and the sensation of "right on!" because I have a fetish fo=
r social unrest.

Cheers,
-e.


—– Original Message —–
According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the America=
n public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the Septe=
mber 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news=
poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein direct=
ly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe the=
se fabrications is anybody's guess.

, joseph mcelroy

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:


> You will notice that I have not included "protest" as an effective means of
> stopping the war. That is because it isn't, and it never has been. Protest is
> a nice way to feel solidarity and surround yourself with people who are not
> the powerless radio call in guy or the powerless guy in a gas station deli
> talking to a deli manager about his opinions, and surround yourself with
> powerless people who believe in the same things you believe so that you don't
> have to hear opinions you don't agree with. I think protests are nice in that
> sort of primal chanting sort of way, I mean solidarity is a good feeling, and
> a lot of very nice people are at protests and I agree with every sentiment
> expressed at them. But they are not an effective means of political change.
> If the 10,000 protesters wanted to affect change, they would go to Iraq. And
> I am not saying "send all the protesters to Iraq and see how the like it
> there." I am saying 10,000 people in the American army fighting a war with
> Iraq who are dedicated to never killing anyone would have an impact. 10,000
> humans [aka "Western Humans"] working as shields around Baghdad would maybe
> make a difference. But 10,000 people at a traffic circle or getting arrested
> in San Francisco has no impact except to give people like me a short rise and
> the sensation of "right on!" because I have a fetish for social unrest.
>

As any good marketer will tell you, you have to have a solid base of "early
adopters" before a product can start excellerating to critical mass. The goal
of repression is to prevent these early adobtions. The leaders of the anit-war
movement are just haven't found a way to use the protests as leverage. Too
fragmented, no consistent brand message.

Just heard two 23 year olds leaders of opposite polical groups (left/right).
Left guy had no simple brand message counter to the right guy who just said "we
want to attract people to our values" - thereby assuming the morale high ground
without really saying a thing.

The Left explains to much - explainations are weak.

joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

, Christopher Fahey

Eryk wrote:
> So usually I wander around with indictments of
> these people in my head. I would never say
> anything to the guy in the gas station,


Eryk, I profoundly disagree with your state of hopeless resignation and
your stereotypical liberal weakness.

Protests are, IMHO, incredibly effective, but not in the direct way that
many protesters hope it might be. It's not like Bush looks out of his
window, sees protesters, and has second thoughts about waging this war.
But, as you pointed out, it gives some people a "right on!" sensation.
This, to me, is the critical function of outspoken protest. Emboldening
others is the key to all political expression (and it is why even the
tinyest bit of vocal opposition becomes a target for ostracism and
suppression).

You mention that a lot of Americans are chock-full of opinions, and that
we constantly express them. You also argue that the opinions of a couple
of guys-at-the-gas-station don't affect the world. I think they do. I
think that the direction of our country's policies is determined by the
tides and currents of the street-level conversations we have - and by
those we don't have. Opinions that are voiced are immeasurably more
powerful than those that are not voiced.

I'm talking about having the courage to express your opinions openly
with conviction, and to use that conviction to encourage people you meet
to not only agree with you, but to have enough conviction in their own
beleifs to actively express them.

People on the left have a particular aversion to the day-to-day
expression of their political beleifs. The appellations "liberal",
"feminist", and "anti-war activist" are, in America, perceived as highly
negative, even by people who actually fit those descriptions. Most
American women have a distate for the word "feminist". No guy who wants
to maintain their machismo wants to be called a "pacifist". From a
purely avian standpoint, Hawks are *much* cooler than Doves. Who wants
to be a dove!? Many liberal political positions, because of the emphasis
on egalitarianism and peace, require one to take a position of weakness
or softness.

While it is easiest to have no opinion at all, it is clearly socially,
intellectually, and even emotionally easier to be a conservative hawk
than it is to be a liberal dove. It is easier for two guys in a gas
station to talk about "flattening Iraq" than it is to talk about how to
achieve a just peace and political stability in the troubled region.
People who disagree with the war and wish to engage in a more
substantive debate have a lot of social pressure against getting their
voices heard at all. At a broad level, it's clear that the media doesn't
like to let them on the air for fear of pissing someone off somewhere.
But even at the grassroots level, it's hard for many people who question
the war to bring it up in conversation - even over dinner with their
friends, even with family.

You estimate (believably) that 20% of protesters are probably marching
for stupid reasons. But the bigger picture is worse: I would estimate
that a quarter of all Americans would be for ANY war against ANYBODY no
matter what, because they beleive that to think otherwise is to be weak
and unpatriotic. IMHO, 25% of us will simply always be in favor of
America as a global bully. These folks find it quite easy to express
their opinions in this country, for the aforementioned reasons. They
speak from the lizard parts of their brains, and I fear it will always
be so.

I estimate that another 50% of Americans have opinions that are so
shallow and flexible that they will simply believe whatever is in the
general zeitgeist, what's on TV, what people are saying at the gas
station, etc. They may be variously inclined towards liberal ideas and
conservative ideas, but they are always flexible (currently, this group
is in favor of the war in Iraq).

So let's say the remaining 25% of people in this country are decisively
opposed to the war for whatever smart/dumb reasons. Most of these
people, in today's political climate, are still afraid to express their
opinions (again, for fear of being labelled "a liberal" or "weak"). They
won't go to protests, they won't talk about the war at work, they won't
bring it up with their families, they won't even say anything to the
guys at the gas station.

The result is that the country *looks* overwhelmingly like it is in
favor of the war, when it need not be. Not just in Gallup polls, but in
the the spirit in the air, in the national "conversation". If Americans
are not having war debates at the dinner table or at the gas station,
then they won't have war debates on television or in Congress.

I encourage everyone I know (and who has what I think to be "good"
politics!!) to be outspoken and even argumentative about their politics.
If the 25% of us who are against the war were to lose our fear of saying
so, and if we all encouraged others tp also have the courage to express
themselve, maybe those in the "undecided 50%" who are willing to listen
will change their minds.

Don't call the White House, call your parents. Don't become a human
sheild, just talk to folks you meet every day. There are some people
whose pro-war opinions are so weakly held that meeting and conversing
with an intelligent, passionate, and outspoken liberal might make them
change their minds. You could be that liberal! There are some who would
change their minds if only they knew that a few of their friends or
colleagues were against the war. We could be those friends!

There are friends of yours who already agree with you but who lack the
conviction to speak up about it anywhere. Perhaps your conviction,
expressed through your outspokenness, will embolden your friend to open
his or her mouth and change someone else's mind.

Your 3 suggestions (run for office, join the military, become a human
shield) are all comically ridiculous, and I think you intended them to
be an expression of your own frustration with your seeming inability,
and indeed the inability of the left in general, to make a difference in
the world. Your post is filled with a kind of pathetic defeatism that
has long been the Achilles heel of liberal ideology. I wholly reject
your hopelessness. I exhort you to take strength from your very beliefs
and to try to change someone's mind this week. One person. It sounds
corny to say that you can make a difference by changing one person's
mind, but right-wingers do the same thing all the time by scaring
lefties into keeping their mouths shut.

Anti-war protesters are great, I love them and I am profoundly grateful
to them. They embolden me to speak out more to my friends, to
co-workers, to my conservative extended family, and to you, right now,
today on this mailing list.

Peace,

-Cf

PS: This is why, with all his flaws, I really admire Michael Moore. A
liberal who is not afraid to speak out in protest at every opportunity
he gets. His key strength is his shamelessness. The weakness of
liberalism is its incessant embarassment with itself. Lefties, get over
it!

, marc garrett

Sorry Eryk,

I had a response to this txt, but gave up after reading David's which was c=
lose to what I had to say.

Who needs enemies when you've got fait accomplis…

marc



The other day I was in a gas station waiting for a pizza and there was th=
is one guy who mumbled when he talked and he was talking to the deli manage=
r [I'm in Maine- our gas stations are supermarkets] and the guy was pretty =
old and unshaven and had two packs of beer with him. And he was talking abo=
ut how it was alright for us to bomb innocents over there because they came=
over here to bomb our innocents. Specifically, he said, "Who was in the wo=
rld trade center? Is that a military target? You tell me, is that a militar=
y target?" He pressed the deli guy for an answer- something I can't stand i=
n conversation, when an obviously rhetorical question gets pushed for an an=
swer.
The deli guy says no. And the other guy says that we ought to go over the=
re and "pave the whole god damned middle east."

Yesterday on the way home from a class, I stumbled around for talk radio =
and it turned out to be the Christian Radio Network. One guy, who called in=
to the radio talk show, was saying how he hopes the Bush administration "g=
ets it right" and stops talking about how Islam is a religion on par with C=
hristianity, and that he hopes that the Bush administration will stop prete=
nding that is true, and that Islam is a religion of peace. He says he hopes=
we put the Iraqi Christian Minority in charge of the country.

So usually I wander around with indictments of these people in my head. I=
would never say anything to the guy in the gas station, but I like to thin=
k I would point out that "innocent" means "having nothing to do with" and t=
herefore bombing innocents in retaliation for our innocents being bombed ma=
kes no sense at all. But I didn't. And it agitated me for a while until the=
radio caller came on, and I just turned the radio off, because here's some=
thing that matters more than any poll numbers about American ignorance or a=
ny arguments I have with work about the war- they don't matter, they're opi=
nions, and no one has any power to do anything about thier opinions. We sit=
around and we comment, like a gaggle of commenting machines, we make notes=
in our heads of who we agree with and who we don't. Maybe you go to a prot=
est- as if they accomplish anything, since I would say 20% of the people at=
any protest are there for what I would call "stupid" ie, uneducated, reaso=
ns. I mean just because someone is against the war it doesn't mean they're =
informed. And whether or not someone is informed, and the overall number of=
people who are informed, has nothing to do with how long this war will las=
t, how many people will die, or how the country will be run if/after Saddam=
is toppled.

There are ways, of course, to make your information matter. But it doesn'=
t involve calling the white house to voice your opinion- for one, anti-war =
sentiment is the minority, for two, if it was the majority it wouldn't matt=
er. We act as if knowledge solves things, it doesn't, application- and phys=
ical interaction with the world- "solves" things, and even that is question=
able. Here are some ways you can actually impact the war. It isn't all of t=
hem however.

+++

1. Run for office and get elected. The key word is to get elected. So cal=
led spoiler candidates are just people like you and me who have half of the=
energy it takes to get into office, but not enough to actually do it. If y=
ou want to win, you will have to put aside your own convictions and reflect=
the poll numbers and hope you win the coin toss that is election day. Once=
in office, you will have to make tons of compromises, and perhaps work for=
several years- maybe even get re-elected- until you will be taken seriousl=
y enough to pass a proposal for legislation that gets out of committee. Onc=
e that happens, you will have to use force and determination- as well as wo=
rking the political back rub system- to get the bill passed. In twenty year=
s or so you might- might- even be in position to run for president, at whic=
h point you can make good use of your education about the horrors of war.=


2. Sign up to be a soldier. If you get sent to Iraq, make sure that you t=
ake extra precautions not to kill civilians, and try to generate a culture =
of respect for life and the enemy within your combat battalion. Learn Arabi=
c, and every time you are in a city, discuss your views with the population=
you have "liberated" about how you aren't really doing that, and what this=
war is really about. But that you signed up for the marines/army anyway in=
order to make sure that as few people got killed as was possible, and that=
you have a personal commitment to never pull a trigger.

3. Fly to Egypt, then go to an Iraqi Embassy, and volunteer your services=
as a human shield. Plenty of people are doing this- some of them French an=
d American, as far as I know, and I would assume English as well. If accept=
ed- you would be, by the way- pick an area and publicize your location, Hav=
e you noticed how many human shield locations are mentioned on CNN and the =
western media? Yeah, me neither. But you will be there, having an actual im=
pact on the war.

+++

You will notice that I have not included "protest" as an effective means =
of stopping the war. That is because it isn't, and it never has been. Prote=
st is a nice way to feel solidarity and surround yourself with people who a=
re not the powerless radio call in guy or the powerless guy in a gas statio=
n deli talking to a deli manager about his opinions, and surround yourself =
with powerless people who believe in the same things you believe so that yo=
u don't have to hear opinions you don't agree with. I think protests are ni=
ce in that sort of primal chanting sort of way, I mean solidarity is a good=
feeling, and a lot of very nice people are at protests and I agree with ev=
ery sentiment expressed at them. But they are not an effective means of pol=
itical change. If the 10,000 protesters wanted to affect change, they would=
go to Iraq. And I am not saying "send all the protesters to Iraq and see h=
ow the like it there." I am saying 10,000 people in the American army fight=
ing a war with Iraq who are dedicated to never killing anyone would have an=
impact. 10,000 humans [aka "Western Humans"] working as shields around Bag=
hdad would maybe make a difference. But 10,000 people at a traffic circle o=
r getting arrested in San Francisco has no impact except to give people lik=
e me a short rise and the sensation of "right on!" because I have a fetish =
for social unrest.

Cheers,
-e.


—– Original Message —–
According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the Ameri=
can public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the Sep=
tember 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC ne=
ws poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein dire=
ctly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe t=
hese fabrications is anybody's guess.

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>

> Eryk, I profoundly disagree with your state of hopeless resignation and
> your stereotypical liberal weakness.


I really don't get how my assertion that changing the world means
interacting with it is "resignation" or "hopelessness." My point is
certainly not that there is nothing one can do. My point is that sitting
here lamenting about the stupidity of the world accomplishes extremely
little. I won't even touch your aggressive taunt of "stereotypical liberal
weakness." Nothing I said was "liberal" or "weak". What stereotypical
liberal weakness entails is the idea that "if only I could teach the world
what is really happening it would be what I think it should be." There is no
way the world should be. And certainly, if one wants to choose to make the
world the way they choose to make it, it will have nothing to do with
"educating" the masses on "the facts behind this war." That's a shell game
designed to appease the intellectual thought process. Actual education on
the war has nothing to with geography or what Saddam Hussein or George Bush
believes is right- war exists even outside that sphere.


>
> Protests are, IMHO, incredibly effective, but not in the direct way that
> many protesters hope it might be. It's not like Bush looks out of his
> window, sees protesters, and has second thoughts about waging this war.
> But, as you pointed out, it gives some people a "right on!" sensation.
> This, to me, is the critical function of outspoken protest. Emboldening
> others is the key to all political expression (and it is why even the
> tinyest bit of vocal opposition becomes a target for ostracism and
> suppression).


Very well then, so if that is what we want- a network of solidarity- then
protest. I said nothing different in my letter. However, if one wants to
actually stop the war, there are actions that could be taken. Also, that
"right on!" has nothing to do with education or thought, it has to do with
the feeling of mass agreement, and I don't believe it is an entirely good
thing. One, for every person that protests embolden against the war, it
emboldens others to the war as well. I work with people who have the war on
157 televisions and when protestors come up on screen the people watching
shake thier heads and mutter about sending them over to Iraq. Screaming and
shouting your beliefs out loud is worthless, no matter how many people are
doing it with you. What would matter is protests of communication- protests
that engage in dialogue and ask questions. (Not to mention that getting
energy from mass solidarity seriously undermines ones own strength.) Art
actions are interesting- the "die-ins" that are going on across the country.
But standing in a crowd that agrees with your sign is something that makes
you feel good, it doesn't stop a war. It didn't in Vietnam, either, though
its something the Boomers seem to like to pretend about themselves.



>
> You mention that a lot of Americans are chock-full of opinions, and that
> we constantly express them. You also argue that the opinions of a couple
> of guys-at-the-gas-station don't affect the world. I think they do. I
> think that the direction of our country's policies is determined by the
> tides and currents of the street-level conversations we have - and by
> those we don't have. Opinions that are voiced are immeasurably more
> powerful than those that are not voiced.


I don't see how any of our national policy is shaped by any civilians
opinion, or we would not be in this war to begin with. In fact, what I see
is quite the opposite- the tides and currents of street level conversation
are molded by our countries policies. Idle chatter has no consequence except
sating ones need for solidarity and agreement. Right now, the word on the
street is "don't criticise the government, we're at war!" This is a direct
result of power relationships. You can read "The Tipping Point" if you want
to know more about this.



>
> I'm talking about having the courage to express your opinions openly
> with conviction, and to use that conviction to encourage people you meet
> to not only agree with you, but to have enough conviction in their own
> beleifs to actively express them.

I agree. But a protest doesn't do this. A protest expresses opinions openly
and with conviction and that is where it stops. What you are talking about
occurs in dialogues and in conversations. I convinced a co-worker to be
against the war a while ago, but guess what? We're still at war. You and are
talking up a storm- this mailing list is talking up a storm, people are
expressing an opinion maelstrom, and the war is still going on. If you want
to pretend that talking about it makes it better, that's fine, connectors
are fine. But I strongly disagree with the idea that "If only everyone KNEW
WHAT I KNEW they would share my opinions!" It happened again today. The
Christian radio station was still on my radio when I turned it on to go
grocery shopping today, and I again mistakenly thought it was NPR and
listened as a woman talked about how kids can't find Iraq on a map and
therefore had no real claim to being able to protest. Then I realized I was
listening to Christian Radio when she started talking about how it was
obvious that the communists were recruiting them [honest to god, this is
what she said.] But anyway I don't see a difference between Christian Radio
writing off the rights of kids to protest based on an abuse of statistics
and our own idea of writing off the pro-war lobby based on weird uses of
statistical information, or any arguement in any direction. If you believe
in something, you can dedicate your life to that possibility. But that takes
more than writing letters to people who agree with you. If ten thousand
protestors did anything besides stand in a street and scream thier opinions
then they could make real change happen. Instead, we stick to the idea that
standing still is a "movement".


>
> People on the left have a particular aversion to the day-to-day
> expression of their political beleifs. The appellations "liberal",
> "feminist", and "anti-war activist" are, in America, perceived as highly
> negative, even by people who actually fit those descriptions.


I used to proudly proclaim all of those labels. I've complained to my bosses
who were leering at Bikini Destinations videos playing on our HD feed about
it and they think I am kidding about fighting for the sisterhood. I could
care less what labels people want to stamp on my forehead. Labels are
asanine, even if we choose labels for ourselves they are asanine.


Most
> American women have a distate for the word "feminist". No guy who wants
> to maintain their machismo wants to be called a "pacifist". From a
> purely avian standpoint, Hawks are *much* cooler than Doves. Who wants
> to be a dove!? Many liberal political positions, because of the emphasis
> on egalitarianism and peace, require one to take a position of weakness
> or softness.


This is a generalization. I don't think you can apply that to everyone in
the country. No one fits so easily into those camps. I know pro-war people
who want to join the military but hate the idea of fighting. To them, war is
more complex than fighting, and it is certainly not an issue of "cool" or
"uncool" to anyone. You are underestimating the people who disagree with
you. This is my point- the fallacious idea that if people only knew the
facts, they would agree with us. I know people who know the facts and don't
agree with me. The correct statement is "If people interpreted the facts as
I interpret the facts, they would agree with me." And to make people change
thier structure of filtration to facts and replace them with new ones
[filters are the basis of all opinions] then it amounts to a game of
control. This is where people start to fight, and this is basically what
this war is about. If you want to stop war, stop wanting to convince the
world that "peace" is the only "right" thing. Even if it is!

I skip a lot of your letter, which I don't disagree with because its not
based on facts really but on hypothesis, and I can't argue with an unproven
hypothesis [ie, "this number of americans wants to fight with anyone they
can" etc etc etc- I don't know if its true, nor do I really see why it
matters.]


>
> Don't call the White House, call your parents. Don't become a human
> sheild, just talk to folks you meet every day. There are some people
> whose pro-war opinions are so weakly held that meeting and conversing
> with an intelligent, passionate, and outspoken liberal might make them
> change their minds. You could be that liberal! There are some who would
> change their minds if only they knew that a few of their friends or
> colleagues were against the war. We could be those friends!


I never said "stop talking." I said protests do little but make us feel
better about ourselves. And even to talk requires a delicate balance of
prescence vs assertion. If we simply assert, then that leads to the
overbearing alienation of people. To commit to an honest conversation re:
war is way harder than screaming opinions at the people who disagree with
you and calling GW Bush a moron. Again, even if you're right.


> Your 3 suggestions (run for office, join the military, become a human
> shield) are all comically ridiculous, and I think you intended them to
> be an expression of your own frustration with your seeming inability,
> and indeed the inability of the left in general, to make a difference in
> the world.

Completely incorrect. My statement is that if you want to "change" things
there are ways to do it. If you are interested in peace you can commit your
life to that. Again I am thinking about Rachel Corrie- and not even the fact
that she died. Even if she was still alive. She was a 23 year old college
student who wanted to change what was happening in the world, so she dropped
out of school to prevent the houses of Palestinians from getting bulldozed.

Your idea that this action is "ridiculous" is ridiculous. People have power
to stop things. Protests seem mostly to reinforce this idea of
powerlessness, this idea that no matter how many people we have, we will not
be heard. If anyone was actually serious about peace they would take a
commitment to making it happen, dedicate thier lives to the possibility of
that happening. Many people dedicate thier lives to other persuits- art, for
example- which is fine until they start pretending that thier desire for
world peace has anything to do with thier own desire to be an artist. Just
because people want the world to be a certain way, it has nothing to do with
the actions they engage in in thier everyday life. Because people have these
ideals of peace, this has nothing to do with the life they lead, the
decisions they make, etc etc etc. If you want solidarity for your opinions,
go to a rally, it's fine. But that is a gesture towards solidarity among
people who have better things to do with thier lives than becoming the
catalysts for peace. Protesting does not make the war dead come back to
life, does not ease the sufferring of people around the world. Pretending it
does is a comforting idea to be sure, but it has nothing to do with
anything.



Your post is filled with a kind of pathetic defeatism that
> has long been the Achilles heel of liberal ideology. I wholly reject
> your hopelessness.


Well, keep "protesting" and when you come home and see people dead on the
streets of Baghdad tell yourself what a difference it made that you stood in
some street with a sign that said "Bush Sucks." And when people talk about
Rachel Corrie, let them know that she is the embodiment of pathetic
defeatism because she decided on a possibility outside of the wholly useless
ideology that protest amounts to anything.


I exhort you to take strength from your very beliefs
> and to try to change someone's mind this week. One person. It sounds
> corny to say that you can make a difference by changing one person's
> mind, but right-wingers do the same thing all the time by scaring
> lefties into keeping their mouths shut.

I am not afraid of your imaginary "left/right" labels. I am afraid of my own
desire to prove how right I am to everyone on the planet, constantly. I
think this is the disease that leads to war, and I am sick of it. I have
convinced people in the past to change thier minds about war, and I went
home saying "yes!" but then realized that it didn't amount to anything
outside of the empowerment of my "right and correct" ideology.

I have no problem with Michael Moore, by the way.

-eryk.

, Eryk Salvaggio

Who is David? I didn't get any response from any David.

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates


Sorry Eryk,

I had a response to this txt, but gave up after reading David's which was=
close to what I had to say.

Who needs enemies when you've got fait accomplis…

marc



The other day I was in a gas station waiting for a pizza and there was =
this one guy who mumbled when he talked and he was talking to the deli mana=
ger [I'm in Maine- our gas stations are supermarkets] and the guy was prett=
y old and unshaven and had two packs of beer with him. And he was talking a=
bout how it was alright for us to bomb innocents over there because they ca=
me over here to bomb our innocents. Specifically, he said, "Who was in the =
world trade center? Is that a military target? You tell me, is that a milit=
ary target?" He pressed the deli guy for an answer- something I can't stand=
in conversation, when an obviously rhetorical question gets pushed for an =
answer.
The deli guy says no. And the other guy says that we ought to go over t=
here and "pave the whole god damned middle east."

Yesterday on the way home from a class, I stumbled around for talk radi=
o and it turned out to be the Christian Radio Network. One guy, who called =
in to the radio talk show, was saying how he hopes the Bush administration =
"gets it right" and stops talking about how Islam is a religion on par with=
Christianity, and that he hopes that the Bush administration will stop pre=
tending that is true, and that Islam is a religion of peace. He says he hop=
es we put the Iraqi Christian Minority in charge of the country.

So usually I wander around with indictments of these people in my head.=
I would never say anything to the guy in the gas station, but I like to th=
ink I would point out that "innocent" means "having nothing to do with" and=
therefore bombing innocents in retaliation for our innocents being bombed =
makes no sense at all. But I didn't. And it agitated me for a while until t=
he radio caller came on, and I just turned the radio off, because here's so=
mething that matters more than any poll numbers about American ignorance or=
any arguments I have with work about the war- they don't matter, they're o=
pinions, and no one has any power to do anything about thier opinions. We s=
it around and we comment, like a gaggle of commenting machines, we make not=
es in our heads of who we agree with and who we don't. Maybe you go to a pr=
otest- as if they accomplish anything, since I would say 20% of the people =
at any protest are there for what I would call "stupid" ie, uneducated, rea=
sons. I mean just because someone is against the war it doesn't mean they'r=
e informed. And whether or not someone is informed, and the overall number =
of people who are informed, has nothing to do with how long this war will l=
ast, how many people will die, or how the country will be run if/after Sadd=
am is toppled.

There are ways, of course, to make your information matter. But it does=
n't involve calling the white house to voice your opinion- for one, anti-wa=
r sentiment is the minority, for two, if it was the majority it wouldn't ma=
tter. We act as if knowledge solves things, it doesn't, application- and ph=
ysical interaction with the world- "solves" things, and even that is questi=
onable. Here are some ways you can actually impact the war. It isn't all of=
them however.

+++

1. Run for office and get elected. The key word is to get elected. So c=
alled spoiler candidates are just people like you and me who have half of t=
he energy it takes to get into office, but not enough to actually do it. If=
you want to win, you will have to put aside your own convictions and refle=
ct the poll numbers and hope you win the coin toss that is election day. On=
ce in office, you will have to make tons of compromises, and perhaps work f=
or several years- maybe even get re-elected- until you will be taken seriou=
sly enough to pass a proposal for legislation that gets out of committee. O=
nce that happens, you will have to use force and determination- as well as =
working the political back rub system- to get the bill passed. In twenty ye=
ars or so you might- might- even be in position to run for president, at wh=
ich point you can make good use of your education about the horrors of war.=


2. Sign up to be a soldier. If you get sent to Iraq, make sure that you=
take extra precautions not to kill civilians, and try to generate a cultur=
e of respect for life and the enemy within your combat battalion. Learn Ara=
bic, and every time you are in a city, discuss your views with the populati=
on you have "liberated" about how you aren't really doing that, and what th=
is war is really about. But that you signed up for the marines/army anyway =
in order to make sure that as few people got killed as was possible, and th=
at you have a personal commitment to never pull a trigger.

3. Fly to Egypt, then go to an Iraqi Embassy, and volunteer your servic=
es as a human shield. Plenty of people are doing this- some of them French =
and American, as far as I know, and I would assume English as well. If acce=
pted- you would be, by the way- pick an area and publicize your location, H=
ave you noticed how many human shield locations are mentioned on CNN and th=
e western media? Yeah, me neither. But you will be there, having an actual =
impact on the war.

+++

You will notice that I have not included "protest" as an effective mean=
s of stopping the war. That is because it isn't, and it never has been. Pro=
test is a nice way to feel solidarity and surround yourself with people who=
are not the powerless radio call in guy or the powerless guy in a gas stat=
ion deli talking to a deli manager about his opinions, and surround yoursel=
f with powerless people who believe in the same things you believe so that =
you don't have to hear opinions you don't agree with. I think protests are =
nice in that sort of primal chanting sort of way, I mean solidarity is a go=
od feeling, and a lot of very nice people are at protests and I agree with =
every sentiment expressed at them. But they are not an effective means of p=
olitical change. If the 10,000 protesters wanted to affect change, they wou=
ld go to Iraq. And I am not saying "send all the protesters to Iraq and see=
how the like it there." I am saying 10,000 people in the American army fig=
hting a war with Iraq who are dedicated to never killing anyone would have =
an impact. 10,000 humans [aka "Western Humans"] working as shields around B=
aghdad would maybe make a difference. But 10,000 people at a traffic circle=
or getting arrested in San Francisco has no impact except to give people l=
ike me a short rise and the sensation of "right on!" because I have a fetis=
h for social unrest.

Cheers,
-e.


—– Original Message —–
According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the Ame=
rican public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the S=
eptember 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC =
news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein di=
rectly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe=
these fabrications is anybody's guess.

, ryan griffis

i just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion. i aggree with a lot of eryk's comments about actions in terms of political change, but come on. this sets up such a (flase) binary opposition between political life and "real" life (even though i know eryk's going to deny this). looking at protests as a means to an end is part of the discursive problem here (for me). Take Back The Streets isn't just about protesting specific issues to inact change, it is change itself. it's not how effective it is - if they occur that is their effectiveness. to relegate political action to representative politics (i even question it's existence in the US right now) and selfless or life-risking acts is dangerous.
the street demonstrations in other countries surely must be looked at when we're talking about their supposed ineffectiveness in "real" politics. i'm not ready to say protestors in Pakistan are people with "better things in their life than really enacting change."
the laws being debated right now about controlling protesting mean something as well.
and if protests, even if a majority position is represented by them (not referencing any thing particular here) are not effective because the power structure just doesn't care, then how effective are "human shields?" if authority can kill us at home, they'll sure as hell kill us in front of the "enemy." and if elections are becoming a mythological process run by the dominant power structure, how can we expect anyone to get elected that would substantially challenge it?
it should be obvious that the US "war on terror" has nothing to do with saving civilian lives while cutting health care for people who die of the flu. yet we're told that that's exactly what it's about. how does one risk their life to change this problem? because no one's going to get elected if they're going to say anything different right now (hell even 50 years ago the AMA made this pretty clear). or should anyone who cares about this stop protesting and become a doctor or insurance CEO - change things from the "inside"?
or are we talking now armed resistance? maybe if we want to trade one authoritarian regime for another.
these aren't my assertions, but my responses to what's been said. i assert that all levels of political (personal=political) action are necessary, and that the specialization of politics is deadly to democracy.
only authoritarian systems exist without conflict.
i apologize for simplifications and rhetoricalness. also for my US-centrism.
best,
ryan

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>


> i just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion. i aggree with a lot of
eryk's comments about actions in terms of political change, but come on.
this sets up such a (flase) binary opposition between political life and
"real" life (even though i know eryk's going to deny this).

There is a difference between politics and life. What I am talking about
however is not "politics," it is "stopping the war," "easing the sufferring
of Iraqis"- these are not things protests do. And the idea that "if I get
out enough information people will change thier minds and agree with me" is
presumptuous and assumes a moral and intellectual superiority over the
people who disagree with us on the war itself. I think this is a sad way to
live ones life. I have no problem with protests. I mentioned before that I
think they can be beautiful for anyone who finds commonality a rare thing
between human beings; my problem is with the ideas that they are a means to
an end.

> looking at protests as a means to an end is part of the discursive problem
here (for me).

I agree wholeheartedly. This is all my comments were ever intended to say.


> Take Back The Streets isn't just about protesting specific issues to inact
change, it is change itself. it's not how effective it is - if they occur
that is their
> effectiveness. to relegate political action to representative politics (i
even question it's existence in the US right now) and selfless or
life-risking acts is dangerous.

These were _some_ of the ways you could ease the suffering of Iraqi people.
I specifically did not say "these are the only ways." But what I wanted to
emphasize is that there is a difference between bitching about things you
don't agree with, and actually working to make the situation "better." For
me, I am starting to believe that there are "reasons" to fight and "reasons"
not to fight this war- but that all in all, I disagree with war; and I
disagree with where it comes from. I don't know that I can stand up and
speak about whether an Iraqi should be "liberated" or not. I also don't like
people marching with fists in the air shouting slogans. I don't think that
"does" anything, nor am I 100% certain that there is something I should
"do."

Risking ones life is not what one has to do. As I said, even if Rachel
Corrie wasn't killed she was still dedicating her life to something. I feel
like if you want to make a difference you can create groups and organize
people of like ideas and work on plans and enact them; in our country
everyone talks about "lobbies" but doesn't talk much about what a lobby is-
its an organization of like minded individuals. If you have a problem with
health insurance, there is a lobby you can join for it, or you can start at
a local level and educate people, if you want to go about "educating"
people. Fuck, I mean, you know what does more for "world peace" than a
protest? Starting a community garden and getting people less isolated from
each other. I am talking about taking concrete actions in the world, and
being in the world, as opposed to standing on the sidelines and saying
"thats bad thats bad thats good thats bad" like biologically engineered
opinion factories. This is dedication to change. Marching in the street is
not dedication to change, its an excuse to scream an opinion and do nothing
to improve the street you're screaming on.



> the street demonstrations in other countries surely must be looked at when
we're talking about their supposed ineffectiveness in "real" politics. i'm
not ready to say > protestors in Pakistan are people with "better things in
their life than really enacting change."


I wouldn't know.


> the laws being debated right now about controlling protesting mean
something as well.

I never said "protesting should be banned." In fact, what I said no one has
disagreed with: Protests are a great means of uniting people and giving them
a sense of solidarity and perhaps empowering change to take place outside of
that meeting of like minded individuals, but in and of itself it is not a
change. It is designed to breed solidarity. Great, then what?


> and if protests, even if a majority position is represented by them (not
referencing any thing particular here) are not effective because the power
structure just
> doesn't care, then how effective are "human shields?" if authority can
kill us at home, they'll sure as hell kill us in front of the "enemy."

Human shields are one way to do it. 10,000 Americans executed by thier own
government publicly in front of Baghdad would make for a hell of a night on
CNN. It is a means of applying the beloved and mythic "pressure on our
government."


> and if elections are becoming a mythological process run by the dominant
power structure, how can we expect anyone to get elected that would
substantially
> challenge it?

I don't know. So what are you saying, we give up?


> it should be obvious that the US "war on terror" has nothing to do with
saving civilian lives while cutting health care for people who die of the
flu. yet we're told ?
> that that's exactly what it's about. how does one risk their life to
change this problem?


You don't. I never mentioned anything about health care. Nor did I ever say
"risking ones life," I said "dedicating ones life." And I don't find it so
hard to believe that someone who really wants to change the government would
run for office. I don't know why that is met with such skepticism. But that
skepticism is why no one "good" runs for office.


> because no one's going to get elected if they're going to say anything
different right now (hell even 50 years ago the AMA made this pretty clear).
or should
> anyone who cares about this stop protesting and become a doctor or
insurance CEO - change things from the "inside"?

I don't see what is so ridiculous about someone who wants to help people get
cheap medical care becoming someone who is in a position to provide it.
Again, this skepticism is why no one does it. It's ridiculous and cyclical-
and far more "resigned and defeatist" than what I am saying, which is that
we have the power to touch the world if we choose to dedicate ourselves to
these possibilities. The problem with "change from the inside" is that it
requires a degree of dedication and integrity that most people haven't built
up. Also, the word "change" never solved anything.


-e.

, Christopher Fahey

Eryk, we have two areas of disagreement: One first has to do with the
dynamics of political debate. The second has to do with my accusation
that you are promoting hopelessness (and my idea that "human sheild"
protests, etc, are pathetic).

Okay, first the dynamics of political debate. The "stereotypical liberal
weakness" I spoke of comes from my (possibly mistaken) perception that
there are *millions* of Americans who would or could act like liberals
but who don't because of two reasons: (1) Society paints nearly all
flavors of liberalism as weak (and all the stuff that comes with the
word "weak"), and (2) Liberals don't think they can change the world
anyway. I apologize if my statement appeared to drip with right-wing
bile. I didn't mean to equate liberallness with weakness - I meant only
to accuse you of having the self-defeating but unfortunately common
liberal opinion that one cannot change the world.

I agree that thinking "If only people knew the facts!" is not a terribly
powerful way to begin a campaign to change the world. I agree that there
are plenty of comprehensive and, I daresay, even intelligent arguments
in favor of the war. There are even intelligent people in favor of the
war, for whom no amount of argument will change their minds. They are
obstinate, they are liars, they are evil, whatever. People have lots of
reasons for being in favor of this war.

But you also said this:

> And the idea that "if I get out enough information
> people will change thier minds and agree with me" is
> presumptuous and assumes a moral and intellectual
> superiority over the people who disagree with us on
> the war itself. I think this is a sad way to live ones
> life.

And this:
> I am afraid of my own desire to prove how right I
> am to everyone on the planet, constantly. I think
> this is the disease that leads to war, and I am sick
> of it. I have convinced people in the past to change
> thier minds about war, and I went home saying "yes!"
> but then realized that it didn't amount to anything
> outside of the empowerment of my "right and
> correct" ideology.

THIS is exactly what I am talking about: You don't believe that your
ideas are intellectually and morally superior to those who disagree with
you? What kind of way to live a life is that? I emphatically believe
that my ideas are intellectually and morally superior to those who
disagree with me, particularly my political and moral ideas. I am quite
open to debate, and I am willing to listen to differing opinions, and I
have often had my mind changed from a seemingly immovable position. But
I am certainly not going to approach a political disagreement from a
position that the two or more oppositing positions are morally and
intellectually equal. That's what I meant by "liberal weakness". You
don't seem to believe your own convictions enough to use them with
strength and to use them to influence others.

What is so wrong about changing someone's mind? Your suggestion to get
into politics is precisely this, writ large and with a heck of a lot
less fact and more rhetoric.


> And even to talk requires a delicate balance of prescence
> vs assertion. If we simply assert, then that leads to the
> overbearing alienation of people. To commit to an honest
> conversation re:war is way harder than screaming
> opinions at the people who disagree with you and calling
> GW Bush a moron. Again, even if you're right.

Do you remember the screaming mobs of Republicans who descended on
Florida to intimidate the chad-counters in 2000, while the Democrats
stayed at home and politely, futilely, waited for the chads to magically
get counted with fairness and civility? I remember wishing that the left
could pump themselves up to be as boorish as the right. I remember
admiring Gore's dignity during the process, but I wished he had Bush's
cutthroat team.

Yes, I pussyfoot around the issue of the war around my conservative
relatives, if only because I realize that calling them ignorant right
wing zombies would probably not help me win my argument. But when I'm
around someone who is confused on the issue, or is afraid to say
something against the war, nothing beats an assertion. Ask any
politician.


> However, if one wants to actually stop the war, there
> are actions that could be taken.

All of the actions you suggest are actions that would require enormous
amounts of courage and sacrifice, above and beyond the abilities of
regular people (no offense to regular people - of which I am one - but
we regular people really don't have a good track record of showing moral
courage in mass numbers). I used the word "ridiculous" because I thought
you intended to be ridiculous. I honestly thought that your three
suggestions were meant facetiously, as if to say "you can't make a
difference unless you are willing to make a huge sacrifice". You seem to
suggest that a dissenter has only two options: (1) make a radical
personal sacrifice to actually change the world, or (2) accept your
insignifigance because nothing you say or do will change anything.

[I particularly thought your human shield suggestion was meant
facetiously with regards to Iraq (Israel/Palestine is a different
story). These folks are almost universally perceived as supporting
Saddam, which seriously dilutes their ability to embolden people to be
against the war.]

I think that your post was needlessly disempowering, that's all. I think
that a simple movement to encourage people to state their opposition to
the war can (and, in fact, already has) change the course of the war.

My mom in Vermont went over to her neighbor's house a while ago, knocked
on the door and talked to the retired farmer for a few minutes. She
asked him, nicely, but with clear emotional conviction in her beliefs,
to remove the anti-gay billboard he had constructed in front of his
house. She asked him to do this as a personal favor to a neighbor. He
took it down. Maybe he still hates gays, who knows. But I think the
anti-gay zeitgeist in Jacksonville Vermont changed for the better that
day because of my mom's little bit of courage and conviction.


> Also, that "right on!" has nothing to do with education
> or thought, it has to do with the feeling of mass
> agreement, and I don't believe it is an entirely good
> thing.

I sort of agree with this, but again: why is the left always so afraid
of mass agreement but the right is not?


> … for every person that protests embolden against
> the war, it emboldens others to the war as well.

This is also quite true, and it is admittedly troubling to me. Does the
emboldenment of the left compensate for the obvious enragement of the
right? I'm not sure.

That said, it's amazing how much the character of a public protest
changes as they get larger. An anti-war protest of several thousand
people will contain hundreds of literal pacifists who are against all
violence no matter what, a hundred people who genuinely want to see the
destruction of Israel, a couple of hundred people who are there for
unrelated liberal causes, etc. TV images of such events tend to see
nothing but mohawks, burning flags, obscene placards, etc. Such protests
likely do more harm than good, in my opinion.

But when you get into the tens of thousands, an interesting thing
happens. All of the radicals show up, as they always do, but the bulk of
the crowd starts becoming just normal people. At that scale, the
stereotypes of teenage anarchist protesters don't apply. When you get
into the hundreds of thousands, you have hundreds of thousands of normal
looking people on tv, and hundreds of thousands of people going to work
on Monday and (hopefully) telling all their friends they went to an
anti-war demonstration over the weekend.

It's a lot easier to stand up for what you believe in if you think
someone else, your neighbor perhaps, might stand up with you. If nobody
on the left protests and nobody on the left argues for their opinions
with real conviction, then it's no wonder we think we are lone, minority
voices.


> But standing in a crowd that agrees with your sign is
> something that makes you feel good, it doesn't stop
> a war. It didn't in Vietnam, either, though its
> something the Boomers seem to like to pretend about
> themselves.

Agreed again. For context, November 15, 1969 was the biggest anti-war
protest during the Vietnam war. It was a national gathering in DC, and
there were only 250,000 people there. We've already exceeded that number
in NYC, even before the war started. Protest is often more of a symptom
than a catalyst, but as a catalyst its effects are slow and indirect.


> A protest expresses opinions openly and with
> conviction and that is where it stops. What you are
> talking about occurs in dialogues and in
> conversations. I convinced a co-worker to be
> against the war a while ago, but guess what? We're
> still at war.

You ask for so much, Eryk, no wonder you are disappointed! You ask for
the world, and failing to get it, you think you have failed to get even
a clump of it.


> And when people talk about Rachel Corrie, let them
> know that she is the embodiment of pathetic
> defeatism because she decided on a possibility
> outside of the wholly useless ideology that protest
> amounts to anything.

I'm sorry to be crude, but her tragic death accomplished what, exactly?
This is a rhetorical question, meant to point out that the difference
between her act and the act of a "Bush Sucks" protester is a matter of
degree, not of kind. Both may embolden others to have courage in their
beleifs, but both fail to accomplish their short term goals.

Peace,

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

, ryan griffis

hi eryk, chris, et al.

e. > You don't. I never mentioned anything about health care. Nor did I
> ever say
> "risking ones life," I said "dedicating ones life." And I don't find
> it so
> hard to believe that someone who really wants to change the government
> would
> run for office. I don't know why that is met with such skepticism. But
> that
> skepticism is why no one "good" runs for office.

i didn't mean to come off as totally skeptical of running for office or "working on the inside." i lived in Oregon for a few years and there was a vital form of direct and representative democracy that i found very engaging. and "spoiler" candidates, as the Green party is usually referred to, actually made huge impacts on what issues got discussed and how ballot measures were considered. i merely meant to suggest that we should expect (demand) that those instances of direct and rep. forms of democracy are actually active. some of what eryk says reminds me of the traditional liberal-state line (like that from E. Bernays and Samuel Huntington) that says the only political process that should make policy comes from the "educated" and "elected" classes. in other words, the rest of us dilettantes should just shut up, work at our jobs, and let democracy work - or let the media create our approving consent. i know that this isn't what eryk's saying, but if change can't happen through mediated discussion, we must give up on the myth of democracy, and decide that everything political is resolved in individualistic, Darwinian terms (you don't like it, YOU change it). i just can't accept that proposition for many reasons.
and i know we're just talking about the War and Iraqi lives, but i don't think this is a completely different project than other forms of sanctioned violence and oppression.
to restate, i think that working from "the inside" is necessary, but not everyone can be "inside," nor should everyone have to be to have a say in things that obviously impact their own lives.
as for the "dedication and integrity that most people haven't built up," sure, but that's a straw man argument. you want individual "integrity and dedication" to mold society according to some sort of paternalistic set of morals? maybe i'm misreading what eryk means, but if demonstrations and public opposition don't affect policy, then what sort of voice can non-specialists have (short of the polls)? or is that enough? and again, this assumes that electoral system is what it purports to be.
but this seems to be moving into heroic politics/business models that suggest that key figures shape history (sometimes such biographical analysis can be instructive, but is often wrong in my opinion, as it misses the point that support structures must be in place for any individual to be accepted as a vector of power). this can't all be discussed in such atomistic terms, there are systems that affect ideology that are important beyond the conservative notions of individual responsibility (without bowing to relativism either). and those systems are what i (and sounds like Chris too?) think can be made more or less open by discussion and demonstration.
best,
ryan

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>
> i didn't mean to come off as totally skeptical of running for office or
"working on the inside." i lived in Oregon for a few years and there was a
vital form of direct and representative democracy that i found very
engaging. and "spoiler" candidates, as the Green party is usually referred
to, actually made huge impacts on what issues got discussed and how ballot
measures were considered.


We had a green primary in Maine. It doesn't matter what got discussed at the
debates, the Democrat won and the original agenda he had is now in place.
Again, you are mistaking "ideas getting talked about" with "actions to put
those ideas into place."


> i merely meant to suggest that we should expect (demand) that those
instances of direct and
> rep. forms of democracy are actually active. some of what eryk says
reminds me of the
> traditional liberal-state line (like that from E. Bernays and Samuel
Huntington) that says the only > political process that should make policy
comes from the "educated" and "elected" classes. in
> other words, the rest of us dilettantes should just shut up, work at our
jobs, and let democracy > work - or let the media create our approving
consent. i know that this isn't what eryk's saying,


It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, in fact I brought up the
exact opposite argument, which is that education has nothing to do with
"right" or "wrong" opinions. If someone has the will to make something so,
they enact on actions in order to make it so. Otherwise people are talking,
and I have no problem with people talking, I have no problem with
solidarity, I have a problem with the idea that talk and protests end wars.
They do not.


but if change can't happen throu!
> gh mediated discussion, we must give up on the myth of democracy, and
decide that everything political is resolved in individualistic, Darwinian
terms (you don't like it, YOU change it). i just can't accept that
proposition for many reasons.


I find this argument is a great way to rationalize against the idea of
direct democracy- and instead to believe that people in a democracy should
just "will" what they want to happen and if they complain loudly enough it
will get done- service sector democracy, or fast food government. It's not
true. If people complain loudly enough maybe someone will monopolize on the
demand in order to secure a position of power [ie, a "lobby"] but in the end
democracy becomes mediated through the "power hungry" as opposed to the
"truly concerned." This is obviously what Americans want- most of them can't
even be bothered to vote, of course they will reject the idea of putting
time into organizing grass root movements and the like, if they actually
want to implement "change". [Which I am not specifically advocating- like I
said, nothing nothing is possible with the word "change."]


-e.

, Michael Szpakowski

Hi Eryk
I hesitated before sending this because I have a high
regard for many of your views but I think here
<I have a problem with the idea that talk
and protests end wars.>
you are just plain wrong.
The Vietnam War was ended by three things:
the dogged resistance of a rag tag peasant army, in
theory massively outgunned by US imperialism; a revolt
in the US army itself typified by "fragging" - first
warning to unpopular officers ( ie those who played
fast and loose with the lives of those they commanded)
a grenade with the pin in , no second warning - a
species of protest that might make us feel very
uncomfortable but a species nonetheless, and thirdly
the mounting protests at home, protests which in the
context of the revolts in the inner cities, the
growing Black Power movement and the mounting worker
militancy of the period the US government feared might
result in a generalised challenge to the system.
The first world war was ended by protests which grew
into the Russian (1917) and German (1919-23)
revolutions.
The British Army speeded up the demobilsation of
troops at the end of the second world war because of
mutinies in the ranks in North Africa.
Finally look at the example of Turkey today. Why are
US troops not stationed on Turkish soil, despite
massive bribery and blackmail? Because of massive
popular protest , which threated to unseat the
government there.
This in turn undoubtedly slowed down the US's
offensive in the area - ie. street protest had a
direct and practical effect.

Finally, a point on street demonstrations themselves:
it is simply not true that the population is divided
neatly into those who are either clearly for or
clearly against the war - many ordinary people swing
from one position to another - not least because of
the intimidating effect of the media, which largely
carries the government position, or folk hate what is
going on but keep quiet about it out of fear or from
feelings of isolation.
In these circumstances a confident, large, articulate
demonstration can give many waverers the confidence to
come out fully against the current butchery, with
perhaps or perhaps not ( we don't know because we
don't have a crystal ball) the kind of knock on effect
that we saw in Turkey which can shorten, or in not
unimaginable circumstances actually end the war.
I understand that it's harder to be actively against
the war in the States than it is in Britain but it's
possible and levels of protest are, as I think Chris
pointed out, actually higher now than at any point in
the Vietnam war.
Look at history - protest can and does make a
difference.
best
michael


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

, D42 Kandinskij

*whistle*

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat
of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
This is not a way of life at all
in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a
cross of iron.

– Dwight D. Eisenhower
President of the United States

What is your preferred mode of "martyrship"?

However it is "art + clever" if the activity is done by an "artist" and
*awful evil* if
it's done by a politician. One form of murder is more justified than
another. All is art!

Ahoj!




-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
[email protected]


http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

, D42 Kandinskij

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:43:32 -0500, "Christopher Fahey [askrom]"
<[email protected]> said:
> Eryk wrote:
> > So usually I wander around with indictments of
> > these people in my head. I would never say
> > anything to the guy in the gas station,
>
>
> Eryk, I profoundly disagree with your state of hopeless resignation and
> your stereotypical liberal weakness.


Most excellent. Slap those labels + attempt to guilt-trip him.
What "hopeless resignation"? Humans don't behave like stereotypes.
Stereotypes are mental categories in which it's easy to automaticlly
dress humans instead of having to address reality head on.

Which is the *real* reason why you do *react* to Eryk's post.

Because you'd *like* him to act your way. And how will you
get him there? W/cheap tricks.

> Protests are, IMHO, incredibly effective, but not in the direct way that
> many protesters hope it might be. It's not like Bush looks out of his
> window, sees protesters, and has second thoughts about waging this war.
> But, as you pointed out, it gives some people a "right on!" sensation.
> This, to me, is the critical function of outspoken protest.

Yes certainly is. Critical to piss your energy away into "feel good"
spastic masturbations in public.

> Emboldening
> others is the key to all political expression (and it is why even the
> tinyest bit of vocal opposition becomes a target for ostracism and
> suppression).

Er right. Observe your own reactions to dissenting "opinions".
Emboldening others is the key to political expression?
Quite obviously. A bit like *fashion* it makes ya feel
cool and badass.

> You mention that a lot of Americans are chock-full of opinions, and that
> we constantly express them. You also argue that the opinions of a couple
> of guys-at-the-gas-station don't affect the world. I think they do.

You can *think* all that you want. In fact, go think yourself
into a stupor. In fact, go THINK.

> I
> think that the direction of our country's policies is determined by the
> tides and currents of the street-level conversations we have - and by
> those we don't have.

Yes, wouldn't it be *nice* to tell yourself that?

> Opinions that are voiced are immeasurably more
> powerful than those that are not voiced.

Oh yes, certainly. Let all the crickets screaam.

> I'm talking about having the courage to express your opinions openly
> with conviction,

That's called mouthing off, and conviction is called buying your own
propaganda. As the adorable Wyndham Lewis would say, don't mesmerize
yourself with the passes you make.

> and to use that conviction to encourage people you meet
> to not only agree with you, but to have enough conviction in their own
> beleifs to actively express them.

Yes, *enough conviction* that they'll AGREE with YOUR OPINIONS,
which will then become THEIR CONVICTION and they'll stampede
down the street repeating the same drivel WITH CONVICTON.

Halleluja! It's sunday church. Someone pass me the mike!


> People on the left have a particular aversion to the day-to-day
> expression of their political beleifs. The appellations "liberal",
> "feminist", and "anti-war activist" are, in America, perceived as highly
> negative, even by people who actually fit those descriptions. Most
> American women have a distate for the word "feminist". No guy who wants
> to maintain their machismo wants to be called a "pacifist". From a
> purely avian standpoint, Hawks are *much* cooler than Doves. Who wants
> to be a dove!? Many liberal political positions, because of the emphasis
> on egalitarianism and peace, require one to take a position of weakness
> or softness.

Er? The above is not only cheaply knee-jerk but full of factual
ignorance.


> While it is easiest to have no opinion at all, it is clearly socially,
> intellectually, and even emotionally easier to be a conservative hawk
> than it is to be a liberal dove.

And how do you measure BEING? By flippant idiotic stereotypes?

Argentina is larger than Bolivia.
Females in Botsuana are far more likely to wear sarongs than those
of Maine.
The more I punctuate my writing with irrelevant data spoken
with CONVICTION the more compelling my argument.

> It is easier for two guys in a gas
> station to talk about "flattening Iraq" than it is to talk about how to
> achieve a just peace and political stability in the troubled region.
> People who disagree with the war and wish to engage in a more
> substantive debate have a lot of social pressure against getting their
> voices heard at all. At a broad level, it's clear that the media doesn't
> like to let them on the air for fear of pissing someone off somewhere.

It's *so* clear. That's *exactly* what's going on.

> But even at the grassroots level, it's hard for many people who question
> the war to bring it up in conversation - even over dinner with their
> friends, even with family.

Is it?

> You estimate (believably) that 20% of protesters are probably marching
> for stupid reasons. But the bigger picture is worse: I would estimate
> that a quarter of all Americans would be for ANY war against ANYBODY no
> matter what, because they beleive that to think otherwise is to be weak
> and unpatriotic.

Is that so?

> IMHO, 25% of us will simply always be in favor of
> America as a global bully.

And that statistic is based on what. And what global bully?
You haven't even *met* the global bullies of whom your governments
are muppets, and allow me to assure you, they don't belong to
America in particular.

>The e folks find it quite easy to express
> their opinions in this country, for the aforementioned reasons. They
> speak from the lizard parts of their brains, and I fear it will always
> be so.

It's a brain surgeon. What about those who speaak to the
draconian parts of their brains?


> I estimate that another 50% of Americans have opinions that are so
> shallow and flexible that they will simply believe whatever is in the
> general zeitgeist, what's on TV, what people are saying at the gas
> station, etc.

Yes, maybe aboout 50% of Americans will buy the above opinion.


They may be variously inclined towards liberal ideas and
> conservative ideas, but they are always flexible (currently, this group
> is in favor of the war in Iraq).
>
> So let's say the remaining 25% of people in this country are decisively
> opposed to the war for whatever smart/dumb reasons. Most of these
> people, in today's political climate, are still afraid to express their
> opinions (again, for fear of being labelled "a liberal" or "weak").


What's with the bloody statistics?

They
> won't go to protests, they won't talk about the war at work, they won't
> bring it up with their families, they won't even say anything to the
> guys at the gas station.
>
> The result is that the country *looks* overwhelmingly like it is in
> favor of the war, when it need not be.

Is *that* what the result is?

Not just in Gallup polls, but in
> the the spirit in the air, in the national "conversation". If Americans
> are not having war debates at the dinner table or at the gas station,
> then they won't have war debates on television or in Congress.

And that's right. You'll *look* bad.
But otherwise–you've got control of the media machine *pat down*
Mostly by opinionating with conviction.

> I encourage everyone I know (and who has what I think to be "good"
> politics!!) to be outspoken and even argumentative about their politics.
> If the 25% of us who are against the war were to lose our fear of saying
> so, and if we all encouraged others tp also have the courage to express
> themselve, maybe those in the "undecided 50%" who are willing to listen
> will change their minds.
>
> Don't call the White House, call your parents. Don't become a human
> sheild, just talk to folks you meet every day. There are some people
> whose pro-war opinions are so weakly held that meeting and conversing
> with an intelligent, passionate, and outspoken liberal might make them
> change their minds.

Dear, changing the mind of humanas can be done merely by looking
at them. In fact humans change their minds on average 60 times a
minute.
Can't help it, you know. The brain is not a tool which can do
anything besides reflect illusory data.


>You could be that liberal!

JUST IMAGINE! You could by into Askrom's propaganda!!!
Please note the *conviction*.


There are some who would
> change their minds if only they knew that a few of their friends or
> colleagues were against the war. We could be those friends!

And what a difference that'll make!
Changing minds–like changing the picture on the TV–of the
hallucinating dumb + senseless asleep humans: WOW!

> There are friends of yours who already agree with you but who lack the
> conviction to speak up about it anywhere.

Preach it brother! One man's zealotry is another's conviction.

Perhaps your conviction,
> expressed through your outspokenness, will embolden your friend to open
> his or her mouth and change someone else's mind.


Yes. Fucking around with ppl's *minds*.

> Your 3 suggestions (run for office, join the military, become a human
> shield) are all comically ridiculous,


Are they? Or are those your own projections?


and I think you intended them to
> be an expression of your own frustration with your seeming inability,
> and indeed the inability of the left in general, to make a difference in
> the world.

Yes, CONVICTIOn and telling people what they REALLY mean.

>
Your post is filled with a kind of pathetic defeatism that
> has long been the Achilles heel of liberal ideology.

Absolutely!

I wholly reject
> your hopelessness.

And? You think you have *hope*?


I exhort you to take strength from your very beliefs
> and to try to change someone's mind this week. One person. It sounds
> corny to say that you can make a difference by changing one person's
> mind, but right-wingers do the same thing all the time by scaring
> lefties into keeping their mouths shut.

No it doesn't. It's incredibly dumb and easy to change ppl's minds.
And it doesn't achieve anything. It just changes the programme.


> Anti-war protesters are great, I love them and I am profoundly grateful
> to them.

Yes clearly. This is all aboit you. And Eryk should be about you!

They embolden me to speak out more to my friends, to
> co-workers, to my conservative extended family, and to you, right now,
> today on this mailing list.

WITH CONVICTION!


> Peace,

What a shame that your *peace* is a programme which contributes to war.
WITH CONVICTION!

Ah, and that cheap political idealist schlock–aint got nothing to do
with what's really going on in politics.

http://www.influenceatwork.com/
with CONVICTION!

How about you try something real for a change?
How about you try to liberate and raise yourself
which you can perceive what is really going on
instead of getting cheap highs?


Now that'll require some true effort and courage.

CONVICTION and "changing people's minds" does not.

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/tg/lyrics/convincing_people.html


-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
[email protected]


http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different

, Christopher Fahey

Someone who has a similar name but different email address from someone
I blocked wrote:
> How about you try something real for a change?
> How about you try to liberate and raise yourself
> which you can perceive what is really going on
> instead of getting cheap highs?
>
> Now that'll require some true effort and courage.
>
> CONVICTION and "changing people's minds" does not.
> http://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/tg/lyrics/convincing_people.html

We don't want to convince people
Let me tell you
I'll tell you what I want you to do
It's no way, no way, no way
To convince people

Those Throbbing Gristle lyrics you pointed us to actually exemplify what
I'm talking about. It's a state of hopeless resignation, a self-exile to
a world of powerlessness. This kind of subcultural self-righteousness, a
principled stand against the use of influence, is a mask for the
underlying abdication of responsibility to the world. "Fuck society",
right? Maybe I was wrong to call it a "liberal" idea: it applies to any
person who condemns the power of influence, and I just happen to see a
lot of liberals who share that belief.

People who like to think of themselves as free from the influence of
propaganda like to also think that exercising intellectual influence
over another person is inherently wrong. They think that it is an insult
to attempt to use any rhetorical or emotional means to change another
person's mind. I sympathise with that point of view, I really do, but I
also ask: what's so wrong about changing someone else's mind?

What if other people's minds are wrong? I am not so detached from the
world to think that some people are driven by their beliefs to do things
that I detest.

In such cases, it's not an affront to free thought to want to change
someone's mind. It's politics. If you find the idea of politics and
influence so disgusting, then why did you suggest some ways for me to
"try to liberate" myself? Why did you respond to my email at all?

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

, Christopher Fahey

> What if other people's minds are wrong? I am not so detached
> from the world to think that some people are driven by their
> beliefs to do things that I detest.

Er, I meant "I am not so detached from the world to *not* think that
some people are driven by their beliefs to do things that I detest."

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

, D42 Kandinskij

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:47:54 -0500, "Christopher Fahey [askrom]"
<[email protected]> said:
> Someone who has a similar name but different email address from someone
> I blocked wrote:

Yes, someone with a similar name and different e-mail :)
The very unadorable Christopher Fahey has of course
refused to respond to what was written + recoursed to
cheap brutalistic "propganada" w/conviction attempts
and projections.

> > How about you try something real for a change?
> > How about you try to liberate and raise yourself
> > which you can perceive what is really going on
> > instead of getting cheap highs?
> >
> > Now that'll require some true effort and courage.
> >
> > CONVICTION and "changing people's minds" does not.
> > http://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/tg/lyrics/convincing_people.html
>
> We don't want to convince people
> Let me tell you
> I'll tell you what I want you to do
> It's no way, no way, no way
> To convince people


> Those Throbbing Gristle lyrics you pointed us to actually exemplify what
> I'm talking about.

We didn't point to any Throbbing Gristle lyrics.
In fact we din't engage in "pointing" at all.
Avoid ascribing your habits of behavior onto us.

Nor do the lyrics "exemplify" whatever you wish
them to exemplify. In fact they don't "exemplify"
anything, despite your furious feet stomping and
DECLARATIONS WITH CONVICTION.

All you're doing is slapping a label which suits
your agenda and proceeding to get all "excited"
about it.

Observe the dictatorial "convincing" ape:

it's a lemon
it's a limon
it's a citron
it's a zitrone
it's a limone

Won't you *speak my language*? Waltz, waltz.

Do you think that a lemon becomes any more LEMONY
or that its behavior alters by your screaming LEMON
at it? How about if you scream lemon with conviction?
What if 10,000 monkeys scream LEMON LEMON and wave
candles?

What's the difference between the effect of "lemon"
screaming underwater as opposed to typing?

Would an American scream "lemon" more consummeristically
than an Islamic Fundamentalist, if they're both very hungry?

Have you got any more "facts" to "present" about
"people who.." even though that's THOROUGHLY IRRELEVANT?

One little ant fell from its hill.

> It's a state of hopeless resignation, a self-exile to
> a world of powerlessness.

No, it isn't. No matter how much you decide to label it that.
And you can pound your fist and scream "with conviction"
but there will be no "hopeless resignation".

Nor are you addressing the very, very valid *point* that you
have NO IDEA what HOPE is–but it's one of those "important"
labels that if you wave around a bit maybe everyone will start
thinking you're *important*.

Nevermind that you're actually debasing what hope actually is,
attempting to use a verbal designation for it as a whore to
suit your delusional agenda.

> This kind of subcultural self-righteousness,

There is no "subcultural" self-righteousness.
Froth at the mouth all you please.

Not from us, not from the *person* who wrote the lyrics.
Subcultural self-righteousness? The person in question
has had much more cultural impact than you will.

And not only are you *unfamiliar* with who you're replying
to, but you are also unfamiliar with him and his work.

But it's all too easy to blindly label and proceed to
attempt to bash people over the head "with conviction"
(oh sorry, we meant "change their minds").

> principled stand against the use of influence,

There is no "principled stand against the use of influence".

And "changing people's minds" is not about "the use of influence".
You have no "influence" my dearest. You're onle little blind
doll who cannot take responsibility for its actions–and can only
find "power" in 10,000 little dolls confirming its actions.

Had you any contact with ACTUAL INFLUENCE you'd not be typing this
"convictionary" drivel.

And one other thing dear–the person who *wrote* the lyrics was
hardly *resigned*. He was actually someone who has actually had
a taste of *what* and *where* needs to be changed in humans–
and it ain't knee-jerking their *brains,* confusing their
asleep automatic responses with power!

Your "influence" is little more but comparable to one person
walking over to another and slapping them over the head with
a stick (with conviction no less)–and then the other person
responds with pain. Wow. The INFLUENCE!

Doesn't it feel GOOD to be *influential*?

Here, have a whole stack of sticks.

Go "influence".

> is a mask for the
> underlying abdication of responsibility to the world.

There is no such mask.

> "Fuck society", right?

Dunno. It might be right for you.
Surely hasn't got anything to do with what we wrote.
Or the lyrics.

> Maybe I was wrong to call it a "liberal" idea: it applies to any
> person who condemns the power of influence, and I just happen to see a
> lot of liberals who share that belief.

Meaaningless gibberish.

> People who like to think of themselves as free from the influence of
> propaganda

No dearest. Some *individuals* are_ free from propaganda.
And it's fully within the capacity of healthy human beings
to be free from "propaganda". In fact, it's actually their
right by birth–unfortunately that's a realization they
have to come to on their own. What is *unfortunate* is when
the most masochistic of apes "assume" positions from
which they use their "influence" to damage others–and
this is what you're doing. You haven't even sorted yourself
out yet, but you will "fix" others according to your like
and dislike.

> like to also think that exercising intellectual influence
> over another person is inherently wrong.

Yeah. Maybe if you SAY So it'll BECOME so.
Are you typing with "conviction"?

Try harder. What you're writing is cheap manipulatory
idiocy which will have "meaning" only to confused
humans programmed to behave the same way you do.

Hej–but isn't that also why you like going to
these games? "Nobody is free, nobody can be free,
we'll just suffer together"–and you will "convey"
your misery "with conviction" to everybody else.

Just like you're attempting with this e-mail.

> They think that it is an insult to attempt to use any rhetorical or emotional means to > change another
> person's mind.

Yes, that's *exactly* what they THINK.
They're also very lucky to have you TELL everybody what THEY are
THINKING.
After all, the person didn't SPEAK WITH HIS OWN MOUTH, no.

Aren't we all glad that we have Christopher Fahey to "interpret" those
lyrics according to HIS CONVICTIONS?

> I sympathise with that point of view, I really do,

Of course you do dearest. after all, it's YOUR THINKING.
YOUR THINKING which you are attempting to *dictate*
as the picture of what's going on.

Doesn't it ever get lonely to talk to oneself in one's
brain all the time?


> but I
> also ask: what's so wrong about changing someone else's mind?

You're not asking. You're posturing w/ a cheap and meaningless
"moralistic" knee-jerk, attempting to "influentially" trigger
a particular emotional impulse.

You have no capacity to ask at all. With all of your
"influence" you haven't the power to ask a SINGLE question.

> What if other people's minds are wrong?

People's minds have no capacity to be "right or wrong".

> I am not so detached from the
> world to think that some people are driven by their beliefs to do things
> that I detest.

You are. COMPLETELY detached from the world.
And you can peddle your sad dance as some
sort of "insight" into the world, but it isn't.

Pierrot is in the cage talking to his mirror again.

> In such cases, it's not an affront to free thought to want to change
> someone's mind.

No? If humans don't behave the way you *like* them to–
that is, first you choose to enslave yourself to a
simplistic "like & dislike"–and then.. if everybody's
not a slave to your "likes & dislikes" we go back to the
stick beating. With conviction.

That'll teach them.

> It's politics.

No, it isn't politics. And you've never been anywhere *near*
politics.


> If you find the idea of politics and
> influence so disgusting,

Too bad nothing of the sort is occurring.

> then why did you suggest some ways for me to
> "try to liberate" myself? Why did you respond to my email at all?

We are not *accountable* to you dearest.

Nevermind that you're raising your "voice in pathos"
making a false accusation to which we must respond.

Don't imagine that's your "use of influence".

Maybe "we" should use our influence, plant some
child-pornographic propaganda in your house,
use our "influence" to convince the police
that you've beaten us up repeatedly (yes an actor
can be hired in your area easily, especially
with "influence"–and if one kind of influence
won't work, aanother will *wink*), alter your
criminal record perhaps? It's just politics.

And you're doing what we absolutely *detest*.

What if your *mind* is wrong?

Shall we re-arrange your "face"?

It looks funny.

It's just business dearest.

Nothing personal.

But it makes me itch under the collar you know.



-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
[email protected]


http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

, ryan griffis

hi, hope everyone's well.

> (eryk) We had a green primary in Maine. It doesn't matter what got discussed
> at the
> debates, the Democrat won and the original agenda he had is now in
> place.
> Again, you are mistaking "ideas getting talked about" with "actions to
> put
> those ideas into place."

i didn't mean to imply that all was talk with the green party there (OR). many local gov officials represented the views of the green party line, and followed through with policy. NGOs and "grassroots" orgs also had a large impact on policy, esp in terms of resource management, urban planning, and police brutality issues. (for whatever this info is worth…). But also, through talk orgs like state PIRGs raise money to affect policy.


> It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, in fact I brought up
> the
> exact opposite argument, which is that education has nothing to do
> with
> "right" or "wrong" opinions.
> and I have no problem with people talking, I have no problem with
> solidarity, I have a problem with the idea that talk and protests end
> wars.
> They do not.

i didn't mean to make a case for "right" or "wrong", just that the views i mentioned were used to facilitate a specific kind of "democracy" while rhetorically saying it was something else.

>
> I find this argument is a great way to rationalize against the idea of
> direct democracy
> democracy becomes mediated through the "power hungry" as opposed to
> the
> "truly concerned."

i'm not sure what argued against direct democracy exactly, but i get your reference to "service sector democracy" and i would agree that it seems an appropriate psuedonym for how the system works. but how are the "power hungry" different from the "truly concerned?" how does the individual/personal mesh with the systemic? how does ideology fit into what you've been saying? what specific political histories might be useful here? i don't mean these to be rhetorical questions.
take care.
ryan