[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: "The Progressive Movement is astroturf beholden to the rich elite…"

Fri Mar 22 08:30:02 UTC 2013

Mike--

In the original (suppressed) preface to Animal Farm, George Orwell wrote, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Was he right?  

Regards, Carl

On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Carl,
> Just going to answer this one reply, figgerin' we're both just covering well-plowed ground already...
> 
> BTW, no need to personally CC me a copy, either. I read SF just fine. For now.
> 
> 
> On 3/21/2013 9:14 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Shouldn't we be discussing why it is the case that, ten years after the largest antiwar demonstrations in history, the USG is able to spread murder and torture around the world - particularly in the Mideast and North Africa - without let or hindrance, except from its victims?
>> 
> Yeah, that is a big problem. Not sure what I have to contribute, given this is hardly a pre-revolutionary situation or one where the nth angry email is likely to help. The one thing I won't do is continuously harangue the people willing to listen to me about an issue.
>> How has the domestic anti-war movement been so neutralized? The article* referred to in the subject line provides part of the answer, and yes, identity politics provides some more. ("Opposition to Obama is racist!")  
> Quite aware that Obama is still a hero or symbol to some. If my folks were dragged to this country in chains, etc, etc, and somehow a fellow that looks remotely like me, who might have a clue about what white skin privilege is, but who can also see things from my point of view....in a country where the politics of just about anything hardly rises above the level of fighting over the roadkill possum we need for dinner because we can't come to terms officially with the idea that food and a warm spot out of the weather might be a human right...got elected, then I might still be celebrating, whatever the heck you think I should be making my first priority.
> 
> I am sure that some opposition to Obama is racist. Do you really think that's not the case? On the other hand, sometimes it's a matter of priorities at a personal level. Frankly, I'm glad that so many folks are starting to awaken to the need to protect their own interests. When they all get to the state of doctoral degrees, plenty of decent healthcare, and the luxury of time and resources often needed to start worrying about others, then maybe you'll have better luck communicating with the people you're blamin'...jus saying.
>> 
>> The child-killer in the White House will not be restrained until enough Americans become aware of the crimes their government is committing in their name, though not in their interest. It will take a movement like that for civil rights or against the SE Asian war to reverse the Bush-Obama war policy. 
> I would suggest you aim a little higher in term of eyeballs on the screen counts than SF or Peace-D. You're obviously not working hard enough or maybe you need a media consultant to help you shape your message so it's a little more, ummm, digestible.
>> 
>> The Obama administration is aware of that - see Obama's discussion of the Vietnam war in The Audacity of Hope - and determined that such an opposition shall not develop. They'll stop at very little - note their actions in regard to Wikileaks and the Occupy movement, the assassination program and indefinite detention without trial.
>> 
>> We should be working on ways to stop them.  --CGE
> If your personal failure to communicate in a way that compels people to come together and act against evil, then it's awfully hard to work on ways to stop anything we'd rather not happen. If you were really worried about political effectiveness, I wouldn't be wasting my time to write this right now. 
> 
> May I suggest your very own email list, where you can pontificate to all willing to listen? 
> 
> I'd be happy to make arrangements, give you the keys and walk away and let you do your thing. Just let me know. The only thing I want is for you to take the 98%  of stuff that you repost here and has shown to be of so little interest that  you'd get more reaction by dropping a pebble in a well. I think you're a smart guy and realize that most of these folks simply aren't interested in talking with you so long as you continue your sanctimonious, grinding, graceless, annoying, counter-productive, ineffective, and, yes, increasingly vapid tone. So I guess it's just more important to you to condemn the most likely people to do something about what you care about. Not sure how that advances things. Maybe you need a nice long retreat, plenty of prayer and abstention, sweat out all the bad stuff?
> 
> Maybe it's just me. I'm a tad sensitive this week to this sort of thing. I just went through an ugly divorce with two lists I've been deeply involved with, in one case for 16+ years. It involved one crotchety old geek who had a personal beef with a list member. For a long time, he stayed on the one list and my friend stayed on the other. They'd had words before offlist and the old fart just would not keep this tangentially related conflict off-list. The problem was the list owner of both lists kind of thought the jerk's right to be off-topic, insulting, and yes, even a clumsy-stupid blackmail attempt that turned virtually everybody who hadn't already made up their mind to say I'm outta here -- all clearly against list rules BTW --  was more important than the right of the rest of us not to hear about his obsession with abusing my friend everyday. 
> 
> Well, as it turns out, the jerk and the owner are pretty tight. Most of the folks who actually post on one or both lists thought the owner was bat-shit crazy (I won't go into details, trust me, your stuff may been intended to be incredibly irritating, but you still have some anchor in reality) to keep him around after that and, well, we've made other arrangements. No need for further details except this...
> 
> I will not be the one to subject my fellow listmembers to crap that they clearly aren't interested in and which as far as I can tell is posted here mostly to annoy and irritate. Trust me on this, Carl, these folks have their own computers and are smart enough to use Google to find out more what interests them -- and to figure out that you've drawn ever closer to outright bullying. Are we really all accomplices to murder? Heck, I've been working against this sort of stuff since I was 15. "I could've been a contender!" if not for all this radical shit. That never bothers me except when I have to listen to your guff, so tuning you out will likely solve this personal failing of mine. This is not to say that I or they aren't interested in Palestine, warmongering presidents elected under false pretenses, or even abortion and the pope -- but I'm pretty sure at this point they aren't interested in engaging with you on these matters.
> 
> Do you want to know how bad it is? You being here right now is about like Hamas hiring (resurrecting?) bin-Laden and making him their press secretary. Anyone who know the players knows how ridiculous that is. If the shoe fits, wear it.
> 
> So why is there some sort of line in the sand looming? Because I'm the list owner here and I don't want to be a jerk like the guy I was just telling you about and insist on subjecting list members to the latest revisions of the same old arguments I know I've heard many times before. So why is this a problem?
> 
> SF has a long and proud history of not purging people. It's something I'm proud of and don't want to change. But I find myself increasingly tempted to send your membership info to the SF list File 13 as a personal failing of mine. Since I don't want to do that, I'd appreciate it if you take me up on my offer of your own list for general biting and scratching at that powers that be and refrain from doing so here.
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> 
>> _______________________
>> *<http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/>
>> 
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/21/2013 6:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> The leaflet is attached; it was circulated by members of AWARE.
>>>> The objections were directed (as my article describes) at those of us who had earlier circulated a flyer critical of Obama at his "town meeting."
>>>> The substance of that flyer is contained in the article: <http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/09/29/illinois-anti-warriors-and-the-attractive-senator/>.
>>>> Everyone is not/was not mad at me. Identity politics was (and is) an issue...
>> 
>>> Carl,
>>> Yeah, that could be a long discussion. In fact, it was a discussion 
>>> probably started around 1969. Looks like we're making quick work of that 
>>> one as the American left, which I presume is different from them durn' 
>>> "liberals."
>>> 
>>> In its latest iteration here, at least you're only trying to settle 
>>> things from 2005, when Obama was still wiping the moisture from behind 
>>> his ears as the very junior senator from the Land of Lincoln.
>>> 
>>> How is being firmly stuck in the past going to win us victory tomorrow? 
>>> I think even Lenin would be starting to look around and think more about 
>>> when the seminar will be dismissed so he can get a beer than listen to 
>>> the instructor recount his own grad school ideological conflicts for the 
>>> nth time.
>>> Mike
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130322/9fdfb75b/attachment.html>