PTB?

[sijepuis]

What I'm about to say is liable to raise some controversy. I hope so! May it be of a productive kind. <br><br>I'm speaking, broadly, to blog and discussion board frequenters of all stripes who read and discuss issues because, plainly, we're increasingly alarmed by what is happening in this precious world of ours. My sense is that we've arrived at a major crossroads, where, among other things, we need to grasp the notion that we, as citizens, are <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>no longer represented</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->; and, this, irrespective of nation-state. I do not mean to demonize the US by any means. What we're facing is a political crisis of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>gloabal</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> proportions. The Americans would do well to understand that the problems we face, collectively, have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>nothing</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to do with the Dem / Repub party-with-two-faces, and rethink their belief that global change can be brought about through <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>American</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> elections. Nor are the leaders of France, Germany -- Europe, in general, Russia, China, or any other major economic player, in a position to represent popular opinion, as these governances have been preempted by competing <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>supra</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->national economies. <br><br>There is a long history of alarmist chatter regarding assassinations of presidents and civic leaders, etc, theories of the dangers of a NWO and Global governance. While the brightest and best of us have been busily researching these spectacular events, supranational governance has become a matter of fact! <br><br>I believe that now is a critical time to think very carefully about how we want to spend our collective brain power. We no longer have representation. If we are to "think global", what are the means by which we might address the use/abuse of our financial and philosophical contributions? How might we "commoners", essentially funders of the system as it stands, gain an edge on the belligerent hyper-powers?<br><br>How are we to define a plan of action? <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Mentalgongfu]

I would agree with your assessment of a crisis on a global scale, as opposed to national, and I think you've asked the right questions. <br><br>To start to answer them, I would throw out the observation that widespread efforts at social change have in general been unsuccesful in recent times, at least in America, but organization at local levels can still be effective in accomplishing its goals. <br><br>That has to be starting point for any plan of action. If a small but organized group can, for example, convince the county auditor that electronic voting machines are unreliable and to throw out the machines, similar action tends to follow in neighboring counties, and eventually on to the state level. From the state level, it could spread nationally, and then internationally. The snowball effect cannot be enormous - but getting that snowball started, in the face of long odds, is the real challenge. <br><br>Also keep in mind that each individual and personal decision reflects in the collective decision of a group or culture. A one-man boycott of companies associated with the World Bank is less than a drop in the bucket, but if 5,000 farmers in eastern Iowa take an individual position against globalization, their individual actions come together as a collective action; one that has more of an impact. <br><br>This is an enormous topic. Just a few of my initial thoughts. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Public enemy #1 is corporate media.<br><br>If there is any hope, it is in the blogs. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br>sijepuis-- You ask the question:<br><br>"How might we...funders of the system...gain an edge on the belligerent hyper-powers?"<br><br>By not "funding" the system. By that I don't mean refusing to pay your taxes --they'll send you straight to the 'clinker'. I mean...don't support the system or the idea of 'the system'.<br><br>Ironically, most 'good' liberals are absolutely against all monopolies in the market place...but go along with the government having a monopoly on power.<br><br>The key to a safer, happier world is to break up the government's power monopoly...decentralize. Why? Because then evil people like Rumsfeld or Blair (etc.) could only screw up a much smaller sphere, instead of screwing up the whole world.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[sijepuis]

stickdog99 said: <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Public enemy #1 is corporate media".</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Yes, but the media is only one of a number of public enemies. It's a symptom, rather than a source, of our problems. <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"If there is any hope, it is in the blogs".</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Blogs and discussion boards are indispensable platforms for information exchange, you're quite right. Yet they're little more than tools; ie, the "work" they accomplish corresponds to the skill with which they're used. One of the issues I alluded to obliquely in my post is the risk that, in contexts like these, we contribute details and discuss them thoroughly but may stop short of asking ourselves what this body of information actually tells us. <p></p><i></i>