The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast discussion

by **yesferatu** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:15 am

Just to add one thing about what calls for revolution can ultimately lead to....think Couscescu in '89. Of course Romania was not the very belly of the beast...a far cry from the complexity of the leviathan in which we live out our lives. In a simpler country where it was all pretty much laid out what the options were, Coucescu's fate was a given. YET the people did not REALIZE it was a given. They figured out how simple the choice always had been, realizing it only afterwards: <<Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania was overthrown after a crowd that had been ordered to assemble to cheer him started jeering and rioting instead. Why then, after years of secret police and forced pregnancy and extreme economic deprivation and destruction of historic villages? What caused the Romanians to reach the boiling point in December 1989? After the revolution, I saw a TV interview with a woman who said in a bewildered way, "We could have done this at any time, and we didn't realize it.">> <a href="http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=29941&mesg_id=29941">www.progressiveindependen...g_id=29941</a> I do not compare the simplicity of such revolutions to be a model anywhere near feasible in this amerikan leviathan. Interesting thing about 21st century amerika is the paradox: Most violent (slave on slave) and most docile (slave to masters) society to ever fester upon planet earth. I could almost commend (in comparison to this) a violent society if the violence extends as a threat to a fearful government. But we have the worst of both worlds. Violent citizens with docility towards corrupt authority who regulate this needful docility for power and rule.

by **pugzleyca3** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:40 am

One thing the internet has done, though, is make more people aware of this corruption and criminality. The first step must be awareness. Otherwise we got nuthin'. Surely there are more people aware of the depth of this criminal cabal now than any other, than in the history of this country due to the internet. Or am I wrong about that? Then people have to get mad. Really, really mad. Then, and only then, will they do something about it. And I do not necessarily mean violence. To a lot of people, picketing is something they've never done and never gave any thought to, but I know other people who want to do it. They just can't seem to get organized for some reason. I don't see myself as someone to lead people, but if someone doesn't step up pretty soon, I am going to give it a shot. And probably make an ass out of myself in the process. Don't have a clue as to what I am doing, but that never stopped me before. I just can't take it anymore. And I'm sick of talking about it.

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:41 am

STRIKE.

by **pugzleyca3** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:44 am

Do you mean labor kind of strike? I work for myself. Or maybe I misunderstood your post.

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:11 am

I work for myself too, I often fire myself but usually quit first. Yes I mean a strike. Someone somewhere proposed that we call in and cancel our cable TV service... it's been noted that while they can't seem to count votes they always manage to count your money. This is true. A strike, call in sick, withdraw money from your bank, if they'll let you. Starve them out. You don't need to talk endlessly about the issues, isn't it obvious that people are sick of 'it' whatever 'it' is. Leverage that.

by **pugzleyca3** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:17 am

"they can't seem to count votes they always manage to count your money" Ain't it the truth?

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:27 am

I've noticed a vast change on forums and more importantly in public conversations, often I don't even have to bring up the topic, it's everywhere. I think I'm detecting this globally as well where people were hypnotized watching the USa slide ever lower while being blindsided at home. I'm thinking particularly of Canada. About demos; I have seen them denigrated when they happen at home and at the same time cheered when they happen in say, Bolivia or pointed at longingly when talking about the 10 million person international demos which now seem like so long ago. Does anyone even remember this one? <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043006X.shtml">www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043006X.shtml</a> I take this to be a result of the hijacking of the 60's and the job the media has done portraying the failures of that era. Anyway, it doesn't matter really who thinks they are organizing these events, the fact is it's the people who show up determine the quality of the event and that I think is determined by the information discussed on the net. A shooting revolution is my very last choice mostly because I don't think I know of a single such movement that has not almost immediatley been commandeered. But, that goes for social movements too and it's the ability to find out about that which makes the net so important. Take the Women's sufferage movement which was lifted by Bernays to sell cigarretes, or the godawful "Pepsi Generation'. To be honest I'm still giving a lot of thought to the info war and the collective consciousness to end run this thing. You know they think it's crucial, they spend millions upon millions jacking what we think. Indeed 9-11 can be viewed as just that.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:21 pm

To reach more of the masses we must also influence more intelligentsia of the 'management middle-class' that buffers the poor from the uber-elite. Prod those who already have an audience to address issues they don't. Go see them on their book tours personally. Greg Palast isn't covering Operation Mockingbird, just the crimes-du-jour. Even Project Censored isn't telling why there IS a Project Censored. They haven't mentioned it since a 1986 article on CIA control of media in Central America. 20 years since the topic has been mentioned in America's best known catcher of swept-under-the-rug information. Consider the difference those folks could make offering BIG PICTURE keys to how fascism works and thus strengthen the resistance instead of making do with gate-keepers. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 6/10/06 2:23 pm

by **sunny** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:29 pm

..Send them a credible article by a credible journalist that you think encapsulates the big picture. I would like to see that article myself, if you know where to find it.

by **dugoboy** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:57 pm

i have a feeling the 'debates' over gay marriage, estate taxes and flag burning will only turn more people away and perk their ears up more. when bush's polls crashed past 50%, these guys were on the losing trend. and i don't know, do americans like being losers? no. so now it will be the democrats turn, that is if people are completely brainwashed. we just have to keep fighting, we can't afford 2 more years of republican domination i kow that much. i wish people voted in honest people, that would be the best but if not, the democrats are slightly less dangerous.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:08 pm

(Warning: Right this minute the info war is ratcheting up to prevent 'the 1960s' and so I hesitate to be the bird dog telling gatekeepers what they should filter and choke. I think that's how the internet serves the fascists. But more need to know about the US's long history of state-controlled press so take this and post it everywhere because the internet is about to get more 'corporate' and this info needs to go far and wide fast NOW. Take this to every discussion board you can. Not just this one.) What is the landmark 'watchdog press' event? Watergate. (Nevermind that the event was managed theater as a coup.) Who's names are associated? Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It was Carl Bernstein who wrote the 10/20/77 Rolling Stone article with the info which then-CIA Director William Colby gave to the 1975-76 (Frank) Church Senate Sub-committee hearings on CIA abuses. Colby admitted that CIA were in press, wire services, and TV. Some info he would only give in closed-door sessions. He coughed up 400 specific names, the tip of the iceberg. Oddly, Bernstein and everyone else in investigative journalism is acting as if this form of mass mind control wasn't exposed 30 YEARS AGO. From Sourcewatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy- <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Operation_Mockingbird">www.sourcewatch.org/wiki....ockingbird</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>From "Subverting the Media" (<a href="http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/subverting_the_media.htm)">www.deepblacklies.co.uk/s...media.htm)</a> by David Guyatt: "In an October 1977, article published by Rolling Stone magazine, Carl Bernstein reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA. Bernstein went on to reveal that this cozy arrangement had covered the preceding 25 years. Sources told Bernstein that the New York Times, America's most respected newspaper at the time, was one of the CIA's closest media collaborators. Seeking to spread the blame, the New York Times published an article in December 1977, revealing that 'more than eight hundred news and public information organisations and individuals,' had participated in the CIA's covert subversion of the media. "As these stories hit the news, Senate investigators began to probe the CIA sponsored manipulation of the media - the 'Fourth Estate' that supposedly was dedicated to acting as a check and balance on the excesses of the executive. This investigation was, however, curtailed at the insistence of Central Intelligence Agency Directors, William Colby and George H.W. Bush - who would later be elected US President. The information gathered by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church, was 'deliberately buried' Bernstein reported. "Slowly, the role of Mockingbird in muzzling and manipulating the press began to be revealed. In 1974, two former CIA agents, Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, published a sensational book entitled "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" (ISBN 0440203368). The book caused uproar for the many revelations it contained." <hr></blockquote> Senator Frank Church promised to include the info in the final report. He didn't and it was 'leaked' to Carl Bernstein who put it in his article. THAT'S ONE. Next... How's former president of CBS News, Sig Mickelson? In a documentary made by CIA whistleblowers around the same time called 'On Company Business' Mickelson admits ON CAMERA that "the ties with CIA were established before he took the job" and he just continued them. ON CAMERA. I have the videotape and have shown disbelievers. How's Robert Parry, formerly of Newsweek? Or Gary Webb...sort of. He gave us evidence but acted confused. And after the Big Papers ignored and then attacked his story on CIA drug smuggling as 'crazy.' Oddly, Gary Webb said in this speech he thought journos were just "lazy," not part of a "conspiracy." Blind side? Limited hang-out? Seems we don't get 'everything' from our favorite truth-tellers. Gary Webb gave this speech citing Parry's experience covering IranContra and watching the other 'reporters' refuse to cover it. At beltway dinner with head of CIA and media moguls Parry brought up the subject of IranContra and was told 'somethings are best for the public not to know.' <a href="http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/garywebb/garyWebbSpeaks.htm">www.parascope.com/mx/arti...Speaks.htm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Webb: ...I think the Iran-contra scandal was worse than Watergate, far worse than this nonsense we're doing now. But I'll tell you, I think the press played a very big part in downplaying that scandal. One of the people I interviewed for the book was a woman named Pam Naughton, who was one of the best prosecutors that the Iran-contra committee had. And I asked her, why -- you know, it was also the first scandal that was televised, and I remember watching them at night. I would go to work and I'd set the VCR, and I'd come home at night and I'd watch the hearings. Then I'd pick up the paper the next morning, and it was completely different! And I couldn't figure it out, and this has bothered me all these years. So when I got Pam Naughton on the phone, I said, what the hell happened to the press corps in Washington during the Iran-contra scandal? And she said, well, I can tell you what I saw. She said, every day, we would come out at the start of this hearings, and we would lay out a stack of documents -- all the exhibits we were going to introduce -- stuff that she thought was extremely incriminating, front page story after front page story, and they'd sit them on a table. And she said, every day the press corps would come in, and they'd say hi, how're you doing, blah blah blah, and they'd go sit down in the front row and start talking about, you know, did you see the ball game last night, and what they saw on Johnny Carson. And she said one or two reporters would go up and get their stack of documents and go back and write about it, and everybody else sat in the front row, and they would sit and say, okay, what's our story today? And they would all agree what the story was, and they'd go back and write it. Most of them never even looked at the exhibits. And that's why I say it was the press's fault, because there was so much stuff that came out of those hearings. That used to just drive me crazy, you would never see it in the newspaper. And I don't think it's a conspiracy -- if anything, it's a conspiracy of stupidity and laziness. I talked to Bob Parry about this -- when he was working for Newsweek covering Iran-contra, they weren't even letting him go to the hearings. He had to get transcripts messengered to him at his house secretly, so his editors wouldn't find out he was actually reading the transcripts, because he was writing stories that were so different from everybody else's. Bob Parry tells a story of being at a dinner party with Bobby Inman from the CIA, the editor of Newsweek, and all the muckity-mucks -- this was his big introduction into Washington society. And they were sitting at the dinner table in the midst of the Iran-contra thing, talking about everything but Iran-contra. And Bob said he had the bad taste of bringing up the Iran-contra hearing and mentioning one particularly bad aspect of it. And he said, the editor of Newsweek looked at him and said, "You know, Bob, there are just some things that it's better the country just doesn't know about." And all these admirals and generals sitting around the table all nodded their heads in agreement, and they wanted to talk about something else. <hr></blockquote> Here is a list of more 'mainstream' articles from the 1970s. Note the NYTimes article is on Christmas Day, 1977. Clever. <a href="http://home.sandiego.edu/~cgravell/journal.html">home.sandiego.edu/~cgravell/journal.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>See Donald Crewdson, "The CIA's 3-Decade Effort To Mold the World's Views," New York Times, 25 Dec. 1977, 1; "Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA," 26 Dec. 1977, 1; "CIA Established Many Links to Journalists in U.S. and Abroad," 27 Dec. 1977, 1; "Varying Ties to the CIA Confirmed in Inquiry," 27 Dec. 1977, 41; "A Young Reporter's Decision to Join CIA Led to Strain, Anger and Regret, 27 Dec. 1977, 41. Also see "CIA and the Press," Editor & Publisher, 17 Sept. 1977, 6; "Shaping Tomorrow's CIA," Time, 6 Feb. 1978, 15; Stuart Loory, "The CIA's Use of the Press: A Mighty Wurlitzer," Columbia Journalism Review, Sept./Oct. 1974, 819; "The CIA Connection," Newsweek, 10 Dec. 1973, 18; "CBS-CIA Connection Confirmed by Salant," Broadcasting, 30 May 1977, 22. For government investigations, see Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, 94 Cong., 2nd session, S. Doc. 94-755, 1976, 3 vols. (informally known as the Church Committee). Also see House Select Committee on Intelligence Report (Pike Committee Report), 19 Jan. 1976. This report was unpublished but was leaked to the press and is cited in Bernardo Carvalho, "The CIA and the Press," Freedom of Information Center Report 382, December 1977. <hr></blockquote> Here's the Washington Post's Walter Pincus (himself a CIA mouthpiece who gives limited hang-out crumbs to sustain the illusion of a 'watchdog press') on the subject- <a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N4/cia.4w.html">www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N4/cia.4w.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>CIA Official Reveals Agency's Use Of Journalists in Secret Operations By Walter Pincus The Washington Post WASHINGTON Waiving regulations that bar the practice, the CIA on "extraordinarily rare" occasions over the past 19 years has used American journalists or U.S. news organizations as cover in conducting clandestine operations, according to an intelligence official. The official, who would not describe the instances, noted that activities were undertaken under a waiver in CIA regulations formally adopted in 1977. Those rules ended the earlier agency practice of secretly employing American reporters and using the names of U.S. news organizations as cover for the CIA's own clandestine officers. The regulations were a response to public outcry after disclosures a year earlier by congressional committees that the CIA for decades had clandestine agents posing as journalists for American news organization. Under the little-publicized waiver, exceptions to the 1977 prohibitions could be made "with the specific approval" of the CIA director. The intelligence official, who spoke on condition that he remain anonymous, cited that provision in saying, "Exceptions have been made in extraordinarily rare circumstances." Asked about the official's comments, CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Thursday the 1977 regulation including the waiver "has been and continues to be the CIA's policy." He refused to discuss if any waivers had been granted.<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 6/10/06 4:26 pm

by **sunny** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:48 pm

Hugh, I didn't say credible journalists have never treated the subject; what you say is true, and of course I was aware of all of it. But as you know, Project Censored only highlights newsworthy items that have come to light and been suppressed over the preceeding year. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bernstein and everyone else in investigative journalism is acting as if this form of mass mind control wasn't exposed 30 YEARS AGO.<hr></blockquote> Why indeed do they act as though this was never exposed? Could it be they be compromised now as well?

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:42 pm

Thank you Hugh, Wikipedia also has a large entry with many links. Probe magazine did a series of articles about the assassinations during the 60's which includes detailed articles regarding the 'failure' of the 4th Estate, including Walter Pincus and many more. <a href="http://www.webcom.com/ctka/index.html">www.webcom.com/ctka/index.html</a> and <a href="http://tinyurl.com/eae2m">tinyurl.com/eae2m</a> Davis [Deborah Davis, author of Katherine the Great] wrote that <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Wisner 'owned' respected members of Newsweek, CBS, the New York Times, and many others, according to a former CIA analyst who had worked with MOCKINGBIRD. Carl Bernstein reported similar information in has famous Rolling Stone piece from October, 1977, entitled 'The CIA and the Media' in which he outlined how members of all the major media in this country owed some allegiance, whether paid or as volunteers, to the CIA."<hr></blockquote> Especially revealing is the infiltration of the Garrison investigation. It seems the CIA used Garrison as a research tool; when he found something the CIA made it disappear in short order. If they couldn't do that the press was employed to smear. Kennedy's assasination in '63 was probably the ultimate act of 60's hijacking but there was MLK and Malcolm X too... and RFK. Mae Brussell and Alex Constantine have a take on 'Operation Chaos' regarding the deaths of 60's cultural icons. <a href="http://www.konformist.com/rocknroll/chaos.htm">www.konformist.com/rocknroll/chaos.htm</a> Why? Maybe this excerpt from "Storming Heaven" sums it up: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>...the real message the opponents of the psychedelic movement brought to the Congressional hearings. LSD was eroding the work ethic, it was seducing the young into religious fantasies, it was destroying their values. "We have seen something which in a way is most alarming, more alarming than death in a way," testified Sidney Cohen. "And that is the loss of all cultural values, the loss of feeling of right and wrong, of good and bad. These people lead a valueless life, without motivation, without any ambition … they are deculturated, lost to society, lost to themselves." if psychedelics continued to spread, then America ran the risk of becoming a society of spaced out mystics; a communist society no doubt, since the drugs would have sapped the will to confront Soviet aggression. It was an odd debate, with the opponents arguing that LSD had the potential to destroy America, while the proponents claimed the exact opposite. For them, LSD was therapeutic; it corrected the neurotic excesses brought on by a consumer culture; it jarred one free of mental ruts, allowing old problems to be seen from new angles; it accessed higher levels of information, some of which were spiritual in nature. If America was to remain a world power, it could not afford to turn its back on such a useful tool.[13] <hr></blockquote> Worst than death itself. Maybe for them. Strike! LOL Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 6/10/06 5:47 pm

by **Fat Lady Singing** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:25 am

WARNING: long, rambling, self-indulgent post to follow...probably should post it on my own blog, but nobody reads it! Perhaps that's for the best, but that's another issue for another day. As further preamble, also note that I've tried to post to this board a few times recently and have been unable to because it keeps telling me I haven't filled out all the necessary fields, but I swear each and every field is filled out. It has been very frustrating and I'm not optimistic that I'll be able to post now. I may have cracked it by signing in before starting to post rather than at the same time I'm posting, so wish me luck. Anyway, point is, I guess, I got a lot of words saved up... While I think Jeff's article wasn't just about Doing Something as opposed to reading and posting about what makes us angry, the comments here have focused upon that element. Time and time again I've seen this come up on various message boards. "What can we do?" People invariably come up with a bunch of answers, like we have here. There are many problems with this strategy of throwing out ideas like that, but it seems to me the primary problem is one of numbers. I have come to believe that it doesn't matter what action you take if you don't have really, really massive numbers. Someone earlier posted a link to a demo with 350-500K in NYC protesting the Iraq war. There were similarly sized demos in San Francisco and Washington, as I recall, and many smaller demos around the country (I participated here in Columbus, where we got a handful of folks compared to the first Iraq war). This sounds like a whole bunch of people, doesn't it? You'd think such mass demos would have an impact. Or think about the Seattle protests a few years ago--tons of people, lots of civil action and civil disobedience and illegal point-making. Did any of these actions actually effect any lasting change? I wonder. Maybe there's some residual effect I'm unaware of, like perhaps they made an impact on our collective subconscious (not unconscious, but maybe that too) so that protesting doesn't seem like such a horrible thing to more people, or something. I don't know. Or how about the millions of bumperstickers you see: "subvert the dominant paradigm" or "visualize world peace" (and its satirical partner, "visualize whirled peas") or the myriad anti-Bush slogans? For that matter, the millions of magnetic yellow ribbons? Obviously many many people have these sentiments and are willing to proclaim them. It's a lot of people! Has anything changed as a result? But America is such a gigantic country. Even a million people Doing Something, as in the Million Man March (and its later, less-well publicized but equally well-attended spin-offs), may get people's attention but doesn't spur them into further action. A million people is a drop in the bucket in this country. Plus, to concentrate on demos, the ones that do happen seem isolated in time and space. What if, say, just one in every ten people in America participated in an ongoing demo--say every Saturday for six months--just for one hour? Heck, even for just ten minutes, if you could coordinate it that precisely! That would have to have an impact. You can't tell me it wouldn't. It wouldn't even really matter what the demos were about. One weekend it could be 9/11 truth, another it could be the war, and another it could be raising minimum wage. The bad quality of fast food. Anything! Just to get that many people motivated to Do Something other than watch football would scare the pants off the PTB. Ain't gonna happen, though, is it? Can you imagine it? I mean, I can *imagine* it, but I can't imagine it actually happening, if you know what I mean. I can imagine getting that many people to watch the Superbowl or the last episode of Friends or something like that, but to get out on the street and just chant "hey...ho...this [fill in the blank] has got to go!" seems to be more than people can bear. I protested the 2004 election here in the bitter cold that winter, along with about 100 other folks, several times. I think there was a piece on the local news, about 30 seconds, one of the times. There was a tiny Reuters or AP article, a brief mention in the New York Times, I think. A blip on the radar screen. You guys follow this stuff--did you know that two people who protested through civil disobedience by (I forget exactly) sitting in front of Blackwell's office and refusing to move got arrested? They weren't even from Ohio, as I recall--they seemed to be sort of professional protesters. At any rate, they were willing to "put their bodies on the line," as someone has called for here. Didn't do a damn bit of good. All those folks at the NYC protests who got arrested and shoved in a detention center under horrific (for this country) circumstances put their bodies on the line, and it didn't do a damn bit of good. Why? My guess is simply not enough people. Imagine police forces trying to deal with hundreds of thousands of folks refusing to budge from the White House lawn. They just wouldn't have the manpower. But that ain't gonna happen either. Why? Why on earth not? That's the real crux of it. We've all noted that people are getting more and more hip to the truth (at least the basic truth that the government isn't operating in our best interests). Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low (or was, last time I heard about it). I mean, how many of their criminal actions do we need to organize our own civil action? One would think now is the perfect time for a couple of million people to camp out in front of Congress while a couple million more walk from Columbus to Washington while a couple million more stage a sit-in at each state capitol. The draft is the missing element, people say. OK, but the Civil Rights Movement wasn't predicated on the draft, and it seemed to effect lasting change in this country. What else is missing? The election almost never comes up, even here. That RFK, Jr. Rolling Stone article should have been the shot heard 'round the blogosphere, but I think Stephen Colbert's speech was a bigger deal. There's the elephant in the room, if you ask me. If you can't get people worked up about our democracy being stolen from under our noses, not once but TWICE and then again for the foreseeable future, you're not going to get them worked up about much of anything. Another problem, as I see it, is that we're so fractured. We need ONE issue and one alone, ONE issue that 90 percent of Americans will agree needs to be changed, then we hammer away at it. It ain't gonna be 9/11 truth--our culture has paved the way for that to be marginalized quite successfully. The WTO? Too intellectual, just for punky college kids to get worked up about. Immigration issues? Fine, but not enough people are affected by it, or rather it's too difficult to explain how we're all affected by it. The war? See, now, lots and lots of folks think we've got no business being there, probably the majority at this point. That seems like a good issue to rally around. The problem is one of cognitive dissonance, though--we bought this war and we can't return it so we have to live with and be satisfied with our purchase (to strain the Pottery Barn metaphor). People don't want to be seen as devaluing the lives of the soldiers who have been killed, either. I honestly don't think that's the one. All I do know is that it's gotta be ONE thing. "Civil Rights" worked, and sure, there were lots of other things that sucked about the government then, but unity and clarity of purpose really helped for this, plus an extremely able and powerful leader, which brings me to another point--we need an extremely able and powerful leader. It's not going to be a politician, because politicians can't be real. Or maybe it could be a low-level pol, one who can afford to be real. Ah, crap. This has just gotten too depressing. Jeff's right--it may very well be that all this blogging and posting and whatnot is a way to a) keep track of us subversive types and b) bleed us of our will to take concrete action. How do you guys cope with this stuff, anyway? It is really, really, really depressing to me. Thanks for "listening" anyway, those of you who made it this far. I do appreciate it.

by **Sweejak** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:01 pm

There are many actions that are unheard as a glance at the Camp Casey yahoo group will show. I guess the problem with demonstrations is that they are in large measure a function of the media and we all know where the media is at, so we rely on blogs, flickr, and varoius news aggregators to get the message out. But there are other reasons to go to one, "I became convinced that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good."-- MLK I'm not sure about leaders, I like the idea of a decentralized resistance, but I'd throw that aside, at least temporarily, for whoevever can organize a strike.

The Revolution Will Not Be Webcast discussion

Re: blog conversations

Re: Re: blog conversations

Re: Re: blog conversations

Re: Re: blog conversations

Strike

Re: Strike

Re: Strike

Re: 'into the real manifest world'

Hugh

wiffs of revolution

Re: "credible journo" article

Re: "credible journo" article

Re: "credible journo" article

Doing something

Re: Doing something

Who is online