Re: [Peace-discuss] Convergence of the [independent] left and the R[ƎVO˩]UTIONARY right

[E. Wayne Johnson]

All extremes tend to be dysfunctional, but my focus (perhaps lost in my 
words) was toward trying to
seek unity and consensus in reviving the co-opted anti-war movement.

Your definition of mainstream could be interesting. 

if your questions are rhetorical your answers could be interesting.

David Green wrote:
> Why are we buying into mainstream constructs of far left and far 
> right? For that matter, why are we buying into the mainstream 
> definition of mainstream? Which "far" stands for democracy? Which is 
> willing to listen to the people rather than doctrine?
> DG
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> *To:* Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2008 12:59:30 AM
> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] Convergence of the [independent] left and 
> the R[ƎVO˩]UTIONARY right
>
> During the debate tonight Ralph Nader mentioned the Convergence of the 
> Left and the Right.
>
> I dont have his exact words here before me but my interpretation is 
> that the activist movements among the
> progressive (left if you will) and the libertarian (right, but not the 
> neocon right) bring convergence on many issues.
>
> Chuck Baldwin is a Christian and protege' of Ron Paul and is about as 
> conservative and libertarian as anyone can be.
>
> It was Nader who remarked how they actually agree on so many issues 
> and brought up the notion of convergence of right and left.
>
> Interestingly the notorious criminal "mind" of the neocons, Bloody 
> Bill Kristol, also noted several months ago that the far left and the 
> far right
> "meet" with each other and disagree with the policies of the 
> neoconservatives.
>
> Ron Szoke addressed a similar notion on one of the AOTA programs, 
> something along the lines that people who
> are intellectually honest and informed will agree more than they disagree.
>
> There are issues of definition of terms, language, etc. and there are 
> hot-button issues on which the Progressives and the R3volutionaries
> disagree, but close inspection will reveal that there is diversity of 
> ideology and background among the members of each group but
> somehow they manage to find one another and self-assemble.
>
> It is truly a good thing if we can manage to set aside the areas about 
> which we disagree  or have difficulty in communicating about,
> and focus on melding and networking the forces of groups promoting the 
> doctrine of goodness.  Most of the time
> it's pretty easy to decide.  War is bad. Corporatism is bad.  Social 
> injustices are bad.  Police state is bad.  Poverty sucks.
> The MSM sucks. Commercialized repetitive mediocrity sucks.
>
> Peace is good.  Cottage industries and personal innovations and small 
> shops are great.  Getting along with one another is wonderful.
> Sharing is cool.  It's more fun when we share with our friends.  Books 
> and videos and computers are good.  Independent  media outlets
> are essential to our well-being.
>
> There are literally thousands and thousands of patriots on the 
> r3volutionary right who believe in most of what the progressives stand 
> for and they
> are networked and well organized.  None of the ills which have caused 
> progressives and patriots to organize themselves are going to go
> away when the Bush regime leaves office.
>
> There is a tremendous opportunity for broad-based coalition building 
> around key and vital issues like t3h war, the police state and other 
> issues,
> provided that we are able to lay aside as yet unresolved differences.
>
> Captivity in one ancient sense in the Aramaic dialects meant a 
> splitting or dividing.  Thus when prisoners from an army were 
> captured, the sense was that
> they had been split off from the core army.  The same root term is 
> used to describe the splitting of a large stream into smaller streams 
> as the flow
> goes around rocks, sand bars, etc that divide and separate the 
> streams.  Likewise the same Aramaic root describes the division of a 
> flame into tongues of
> flame.    That information elucidates an encouraging non-zionist 
> reading of Psalm 126:
>
> When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them 
> that dream.
> Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: 
> then said they among the heathen, The LORD hath done great things for 
> them.
> The LORD hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad.
> Turn again our captivity, O LORD, as the streams in the south.
> They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
> He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall 
> doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.
>
> Reading this with sense of the turning again the captivity as a 
> re-uniting of the enlightened and awakened, reuniting the
> divided streams into a single mighty river.  Check a map, they streams 
> unite as they move south, and in the case of Ps126, the
> united streams are flowing into a desert land.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081024/851292e7/attachment-0001.html