Should the CIA choose our President?

[Heaven Swan]

p the

The question now is a practical one. What are we going to do about it? Most of the non-Trump (or non crypto-Trump) supporters who post here are activists. Well it's tough being an activist when the majority of the population could care less about the struggle.

Well now they care. And they're showing up at meetings in droves. Are the activists going to criticize and snipe at the sidelines, or show up at the meetings and help shape the emerging movement?

I'm not sure how I can help shape the emerging movement, or if I'd even want to. The practical question seems to come down to, "where in the bureaucratic machinery do I throw my body into the gears?" I'll do it, but I'm not going to tell other people where and when they should do it. That's a personal choice, that I think should arise out of personal motivation.

I'm on the same side as the movement, I empathize. I do think there are important questions that need further exploring. I considered starting a new thread on this topic, but this thread is as good as any for discussing strategy.

I'm a non-voter. Not that I wouldn't vote strategically, if there was someone worth voting for. There are many non-voters. Not all are politically aware like me, they're just treading water, caught up in the drama of their lives. Yet I still think that if you gave them something worth voting for, you could get them to turn out in significant amounts.

But what kind of strategy is that? "Give the non-voters something to vote for." The hell with them, why should we pander to the apathetic?

That's just on the voting side of things. To me, it's an example of a kind of pervasive attitude which is a problem. Hierarchies interfere on every level. There's activist experts, and beginners that need guidance. Or there's the movement and the fence-sitting critics. "I'm more activist than you are" pecking orders.

I have a wealth of knowledge and creativity, natural charisma and dopey wisdom. That's where my talents are. How do I employ that in service to the movement? Go to meetings and smile? I'll make soup during a long-term general strike, sure. If it goes on for long enough to have an impact, they're going to need all the soup they can get.

So what else can I do. Write pamphlets? Design propaganda, slogans, diy ad campaigns, write some protest songs? Even if I don't take credit for the influence I have, I'm not certain any of that is helpful. It isn't participating in making a difference, it's feeding the spectacle. Giving people a choice, "what should I stare at today, trolls, or the inspired left," doesn't feel like an effective strategy for change, to me.

These are some of the things that have been on my mind, I'm just "thinking out loud," here. I'd like to help, but I don't see what use I could serve.

Your post is a breath of fresh air Dada. Sometimes things get so contentious around here.

It's great that you want to do something, and it sounds like you're laden with talents. There are so many ways to contribute. I don't think writing protest songs is feeding the spectacle. Think of Bob Dylan. When large numbers of people dedicate time to changing the world the changemaking takes many forms.

You could look at it from the inside out and see where your heart and soul are leading you, or from the outside in by looking at issues like housing, unionization, or other campaigns and join an already established group or else form one.

New and creative ideas and analyses can be very useful. Both capitalism and communism seem to have failed, so new visions and plans are sorely needed.

When I joined my first leftist group (in my late teens) the older compañeros guided us in what we needed to do to become politicized cadres--they taught us about critical thinking, said that we should try to read several newspapers a day from across the political spectrum, and learn to analyze, especially in practical situations (at that time was generally at school or work), and really listen to people to understand what their true needs are, then seek to formulate a proposal for united action based on their needs. That's just a little snapshot from the past...

For me uniting with others to make the world a better place lifts my spirits like nothing else, I'm convinced it can connect us with higher spiritual planes, for me demonstrations are a source of spiritual nourishment. I went to the Not My President Rally on Monday and filled up my tank, so to speak.

Now I'm mostly involved in feminism, and we're launching a new project that I'm very, very excited about. I want to keep some anonimity around here but I'll say that meeting and working with my sisters brings such richness into my life, caring for others and dedicating time and energy to building a better world is a high like no other. And I really love how inter-generational the movement is today, I'm not sure that was the case in the '50's '60's and '70's.

[Luther Blissett]

Good stuff.

[Grizzly]

Moyers: "The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. COG (continuity of government)

Also, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02719.html

Bush Changes Continuity Plan
Administration, Not DHS, Would Run Shadow Government

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 10, 2007

President Bush issued a formal national security directive yesterday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise, "decapitating" attack on the federal government, and assigned responsibility for coordinating such plans to the White House.

The prospect of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Washington without warning, whether smuggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts as a rising concern since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The order makes explicit that the focus of federal worst-case planning involves a covert nuclear attack against the nation's capital, in contrast with Cold War assumptions that a long-range strike would be preceded by a notice of minutes or hours as missiles were fueled and launched.

"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," states the 72-paragraph order. It is designated National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20.

The statement added, "Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions."

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers to rotate secretly to locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation's survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing "continuity of operations plans."

Since then, other agencies including the Pentagon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have taken steps to relocate facilities or key functions outside of Washington for their own reasons, citing factors such as economics or the importance of avoiding Beltway "group-think."

Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to an independent Continuity of Government Commission, said the order "is a more explicit embrace of what has been since 9/11 an implicit but fairly clear set of assumptions."

He added, "My frustration is that those assumptions have not gripped the Congress in the same way."

Other former Bush administration officials said the directive formalizes a shift of authority away from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House.

Under an executive order dating to the Reagan administration, responsibility for coordinating, implementing and exercising such plans was originally charged to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and later DHS, the Congressional Research Service noted in a 2005 report on a pending DHS reorganization.

The new directive gives the job of coordinating policy to the president's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism -- Frances Fragos Townsend, who will assume the title of national continuity coordinator -- in consultation with Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, with the support of the White House's Homeland Security Council staff. Townsend is to produce an implementation plan within 90 days. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will continue to coordinate operations and activities, the directive said.

Mike Lofgren, a congressional staff member for 28 years, joins Bill Moyers to talk about what he calls Washington's "Deep State," in which elected and unelected figures collude to protect and serve powerful vested interests. "It is how we had deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion or our civil liberties and perpetual war," Lofgren tells Moyers.

[Elvis]

Thanks, Grizzly. Both videos should be part of every primary school curriculum. (Like that would happen.)

[Grizzly]

Are We Witnessing a Coup Operation Against the Trump White House?
https://www.thenation.com/article/are-w ... ite-house/
Our intelligence apparatus is doing far more than stoking paranoia about the Russian bogeyman—it’s threatening democracy.
By Patrick Lawrence


----

Fuck what happened to easy to copy print icons? Geez...

[JackRiddler]

Fuck what happened to easy to copy print icons? Geez...

What happened? We did!

.

[JackRiddler]

OT, I know:

Anyone remember that animation with the pandas and the traffic? I want to see it again.

[minime]

The question now is a practical one. What are we going to do about it? Most of the non-Trump (or non crypto-Trump) supporters who post here are activists. Well it's tough being an activist when the majority of the population could care less about the struggle.

Well now they care. And they're showing up at meetings in droves. Are the activists going to criticize and snipe at the sidelines, or show up at the meetings and help shape the emerging movement?

I'm not sure how I can help shape the emerging movement, or if I'd even want to. The practical question seems to come down to, "where in the bureaucratic machinery do I throw my body into the gears?" I'll do it, but I'm not going to tell other people where and when they should do it. That's a personal choice, that I think should arise out of personal motivation.

I'm on the same side as the movement, I empathize. I do think there are important questions that need further exploring. I considered starting a new thread on this topic, but this thread is as good as any for discussing strategy.

I'm a non-voter. Not that I wouldn't vote strategically, if there was someone worth voting for. There are many non-voters. Not all are politically aware like me, they're just treading water, caught up in the drama of their lives. Yet I still think that if you gave them something worth voting for, you could get them to turn out in significant amounts.

But what kind of strategy is that? "Give the non-voters something to vote for." The hell with them, why should we pander to the apathetic?

That's just on the voting side of things. To me, it's an example of a kind of pervasive attitude which is a problem. Hierarchies interfere on every level. There's activist experts, and beginners that need guidance. Or there's the movement and the fence-sitting critics. "I'm more activist than you are" pecking orders.

I have a wealth of knowledge and creativity, natural charisma and dopey wisdom. That's where my talents are. How do I employ that in service to the movement? Go to meetings and smile? I'll make soup during a long-term general strike, sure. If it goes on for long enough to have an impact, they're going to need all the soup they can get.

So what else can I do. Write pamphlets? Design propaganda, slogans, diy ad campaigns, write some protest songs? Even if I don't take credit for the influence I have, I'm not certain any of that is helpful. It isn't participating in making a difference, it's feeding the spectacle. Giving people a choice, "what should I stare at today, trolls, or the inspired left," doesn't feel like an effective strategy for change, to me.

These are some of the things that have been on my mind, I'm just "thinking out loud," here. I'd like to help, but I don't see what use I could serve.

What kind of soup?

[dada]

You could look at it from the inside out and see where your heart and soul are leading you, or from the outside in by looking at issues like housing, unionization, or other campaigns and join an already established group or else form one.

New and creative ideas and analyses can be very useful. Both capitalism and communism seem to have failed, so new visions and plans are sorely needed.

When I joined my first leftist group (in my late teens) the older compañeros guided us in what we needed to do to become politicized cadres--they taught us about critical thinking, said that we should try to read several newspapers a day from across the political spectrum, and learn to analyze, especially in practical situations (at that time was generally at school or work), and really listen to people to understand what their true needs are, then seek to formulate a proposal for united action based on their needs. That's just a little snapshot from the past...

For me uniting with others to make the world a better place lifts my spirits like nothing else, I'm convinced it can connect us with higher spiritual planes, for me demonstrations are a source of spiritual nourishment. I went to the Not My President Rally on Monday and filled up my tank, so to speak.

Now I'm mostly involved in feminism, and we're launching a new project that I'm very, very excited about. I want to keep some anonimity around here but I'll say that meeting and working with my sisters brings such richness into my life, caring for others and dedicating time and energy to building a better world is a high like no other. And I really love how inter-generational the movement is today, I'm not sure that was the case in the '50's '60's and '70's.

Lots to think about here, thanks.

Still not sure about protest art and music at this political moment. I guess it should be conveying a mood, not a message. Creating, encouraging, and reinforcing a social environment where people can feel perfectly comfortable saying things like, "I support strikers."

Supporting strikers could be dangerous. But if there were a network of strike support, it would be seen as common, normalized. That would be a bit safer. Because just bringing strikers soup, you're taking a risk.

I think the question for me is, what steps can we take to put the system under the greatest strain. If we can coordinate strikes with other cities across the globe, surely we can coordinate some local, non-activist strike support. Ideological and material support, I mean. It would be nice if lots and lots of people started bringing soup to strikers. It could become "a thing."

What kind of soup?

Pumpkin soup.

Or maybe vegetable barley. Or something with potatoes in it. Lentils are good. Probably whatever is cheap, so I can make a bunch of it.

I'm thinking the important thing is the one ingredient that wouldn't be in it: No kool-aid in the soup. Just "you're on strike, I made soup. Here."

But then I thought, you know on a hot day, no striker would turn down a glass of ice cold kool-aid. Kool-aid for strikers could catch on, too. Good for a laugh, lift the spirits. The Kool-aid man or woman would be a welcome sight.