[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigsqq.org
Thu Sep 6 01:09:43 UTC 2012
Perhaps many tire of hearing this from me, but I still accept the idea
that there
will be absolutely no remission of sin without bloodshed. The Sins of
the American people
and their government (of course it's your government, you put them in
office and have sustained them)
will be at some future day called to account. A day of reckoning, if
you will, if you prefer or disdain
such a turn of phrase. Call it Karma or Mount Carmel. Quanbu jiushi
yiyang.
It's all the same thing, sez Gomer Pyle.
The blood that Obama and his minions are shedding abroad for your hearts
is not an
acceptable sacrifice. You can't scapegoat the Arabs and Afghans, or
persecute the Persians and the Pashtuns for your sins.
It just won't work, and you can raise Cain about it how unfair it is for
your veggies but that blood will cry out from the
ground that something just ain't right.
As I see it right now there are only two possible ways forward.
One is for the good people to rise up and slay the prophets of Obamney
and feed the lovely and delightful Killary to the dogs.
It is unlikely that the pepper-scented cowards of Amerika
will rise up and bite their masters. Many think that whole notion of a
violent overthrow is
nauseating if not just plain undesirable, and would even defend the
rights of their masters to keep
them under bondage.
The other way is to "invite in" an invading "military force" to do the
"killing". Actually this is far more
likely and seems to be the mode for correcting an empire in decline.
Since the people are unable/unwilling
to sharpen and put in effect their own razor, a hired one will come in
to do the shaving on a contractual
basis so to speak. Joel's army seems to be equipped with some cool
pyrotechnical "entertainment".
As some miscreant whose name i dont recall wrote about the manifest
destiny without apologies to Pat,
the huns will slip up behind the sleeping amerikans and hit them over
the back of the head with a sock full of shit.
*
I return you to your vital discussions of the importance of honouring
the desire of those delicate ones on
the "peace" list to keep their eyes well shuttered (lettuce dye a pace
in pace).
*****
....Ok.... the guy's name is John Strausbaugh, the book is "Sissy
Nation" and here is an excerpt:
"....unless we stop acting like such sissies,
soon enough some lean, angry barbarians from somewhere out Beyond Fundadome
are going to overrun us, ramming their bayonets in our lard guts
like fingers poking the Pillsbury Doughboy, only we won't be giggling.”
***
Well, Raggedy-man. Ain't we a pair.
On 9/6/2012 7:38 AM, LAURIE wrote:
> Ok, I only got two copies of this message instead of the 8 copies I
> got the last time (but I will give it time to see if the other 6
> copies show up). I realize that this problem may not be an issue that
> stems from your end (but in some cases it could be if one cc’s other
> forums and groups as well as the various individuals that the post is
> replying to).
> Second, I agree with you that the Democratic Party is first and
> foremost an establishment party just like the Republican Party ( they
> are both bought and sold by the establishment which is made up of both
> public and private bureaucracies in public and private organizations
> and business enterprises who have a vested interest in maintaining the
> status quo or the illusion of the status quo, fantasies and myths
> about the “good old days,”the virtues of hard work and self-made
> people, and notions of equity (if not equality) in which everyone gets
> what they earn and deserve through honest free competition and
> markets, etc. The so-called left-wing progressives in the Democratic
> Party resemble moderate Eisenhower Republicans and those Democrats
> that call themselves centralists look and ac t more like Goodwater
> Conservatives. This makes the Democratic Party resemble the Reagan
> Republican Party as you suggest.
> However, while your statement may have been intended as
> tongue-in-cheek; there are many who do hold the optimistic (if not
> utopian) view that a perfect or near-perfect third party can be
> established and that it will not be coopted by the practical realities
> of our political process and out society so as to become a substitute
> for or replacement of the current establishment political parties or
> just a new addition political party of the same type as the existing
> ones. This almost as pervasive as the optimistic myth that “the
> American People” or a large majority of the “99%” actually want and
> support what the “liberals” and “progressive” activists say that they
> do and who they claim to represent. If this were the case, even with
> extensive mass media propaganda and big budget expenditures of the
> corporate establishment and the 1%, of the “American People” and/or
> the majority of the “99%” would not be electing time after time and
> election after election the people that they do for public office.
> They would not be continually fooled into believing the media, the
> politicians, corporate establishment or any of their generalized and
> content-free promises. Similarly, I think that notions of working from
> the inside of any organization is not only a fool’s errand but overly
> optimistic. Minor peripheral reforms might be possible; but major
> systemic changes are not. They typically come from outside the
> organization. In the case of such animals as the political parties,
> their members constitute a captured audience in that they have no
> options but to belong to, support, and participate in the party
> organizations that they identify with and belong to. They operate
> under the premise that their party of choice is the lesser of two
> evils and better to have your evil people in power than the other
> party’s people. Thus, if they become dissatisfied, they do not leave
> their party and join the other one – except in the rarest of cases.
> Instead,, they are more likely to either drop out of the party and
> become cynical and apathetic or drop out of involvement with the
> political process totally in favor of going along silently with what
> ever happens in order to get along with the least practical immediate
> trouble to themselves and their family and friends.
> *From:* Stan Waggoner <mailto:swag901 at ymail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 5:41 PM
> *To:* Laurie Solomon <mailto:ls1000 at live.com>
> *Cc:* peace-discuss <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> First, I apologize for any duplicate emails you may have received. I
> promise I only hit send once. Gremlins I guess.
> Second, my post was intended to be a little tongue in cheek. Building
> a third party at this juncture of corporate spending on elections is,
> I think, a fools mission. Therefore, the only choice that makes any
> sense to me is to move the Democratic Party further left, as the
> Republican party has been moved to the right by the corporations.
> The Democratic Party of today looks more like the Republican Party of
> Reagan than I would like.
> Stan
> *From:* Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>
> *To:* Stan Waggoner <swag901 at ymail.com>
> *Cc:* peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
> I really do not want to get involved in this discussion; but something
> (besides the fact that I received 8 duplicate posts of the same
> message from Stan) has triggered my response mechanism. I have two
> questions to ask:
> First, I think the statement (“We can defeat them tomorrow by spending
> our time trying to build a perfect third party today”) is overly
> optimistic in many sense of the term. 1) What evidence do you have
> that a third party will result in defeating anyone in the future –
> much less bring about real policy changes? 2) When has there ever been
> a “perfect” third party; and what make you think that perfection is
> achievable – never mind any goal of absolute perfection and settling
> for partial perfection at a level significantly greater than has ever
> existed?
> Secondly, since many of the Democratic faithful would never vote
> Republican under any circumstances and see “bad” Democratic
> politicians and officials as being the lesser of two evils, how do you
> propose the threat to vote Republican or even third party to be taken
> seriously as a real threat by the likes of Feinstein, Emmanuel, or any
> other Democratic politician or official? I remember how Democrats
> complained about how votes for third party candidate, Ralph Nader,
> cost the Democrats a Presidential election and gave it to the
> Republicans. Given this sort of response to acting upon one’s threat
> to not vote for someone from the Democratic Party, such threats become
> meaningless.
> *From:* Stan Waggoner <mailto:swag901 at ymail.com>
> *Sent:* September 04, 2012 9:37 PM
> *To:* David Green <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net> ;
> occupycu at lists.chambana.net <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> There is more of us than them.
> Building one from scratch means getting some from them, and some from
> us, dividing both parties, and creating a third.
> In 1856 when the Whig party was already dieing that was doable.
> The easiest way now is to move the Democratic Party further to the
> left. We do it a step at a time, not moving mountains a Boulder at a
> time.
> One final thought. Both Dianne Feinstein and Rahm Emmanuel want to
> get re-elected. Without us they can not. They need to know that. We
> may be able to defeat them today by voting Republican. We can defeat
> them tomorrow by spending our time trying to build a perfect third
> party today.
> Stan
> *From:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Stan Waggoner <swag901 at ymail.com>
> *Cc:* "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>;
> "occupycu at lists.chambana.net" <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> If you bother to "take over" the party, then why not just build one
> from scratch, or take over one that is not being used. You're talking
> the party of Dianne Feinstein and Rahm Emmanuel.
>
> *From:* Stan Waggoner <swag901 at ymail.com>
> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>;
> "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>;
> "occupycu at lists.chambana.net" <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> Ok, so those of us on the left should throw away the organizations
> that have gotten the Democratic party where it is, and start
> building a "perfect" Democratic Party. HooHaa.
> In the time it takes to do that, there will be nothing left for
> the "perfect" Democratic Party to govern.
> We need to go to the Democratic Party meetings each month, we need
> to call in to the _Penny For Your Thoughts_ show on WDWS, we need
> to talk to each person we see, and tell them the truth. Anything
> less, anything other (third party), only lets the extreme right
> (Republican Party) destroy our country.
> We need to re-take the Democratic Party for the benefit of the
> PEOPLE not the party.
> Stan
> AKA Reasonable Man Stan
> WDWS
> *From:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> *To:* "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>;
> "occupycu at lists.chambana.net" <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2012 9:03 AM
> *Subject:* [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> http://www.zcommunications.org/gandhi-and-occupy-by-norman-finkelstein
> There is a lot to be learned from Finkelstein's study of Gandhi
> that is relevant to tactics being discussed on various local
> lists. Notice that elections and voting in our two party system
> are (tellingly) not even mentioned. Neither party is mentioned. In
> my opinion, Republicans promote the neoliberal agenda by proposing
> extreme measures. Democrats promote the neoliberal agenda by
> proposing compromises with Republicans. This has been a collective
> effort for goals that rulers of both parties support. It's worked
> pretty well for 36 years, since the campaign of 1976 when Carter
> was elected.
> There are worthy goals of equality and recognition regarding race,
> gender, sexual orientation, immigrants, etc. still to be achieved,
> obviously. Unfortunately, these goals are by and large co-opted as
> a part of Democratic Party tactics to win votes for their
> ultimately neoliberal agenda, which ultimately converts genuine
> grievances into identity politics. That is why, even given an
> understanding of the historical struggle for voting rights for
> African-Americans, I'm left cold by all the attention being
> devoted to voting rights by the progressive media. Of course there
> are legitimate ongoing grievances and Republican outrages; but
> ultimately an emphasis on "working within the system" is only to
> the advantage of the domianant in a system based on domination.
> And don't forget that both parties will try to run to the "right"
> of each other regarding foreign policy, especially Israel; ain't
> nobody gonna get my Jewish vote.
> David Green
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120906/254df3c8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list