Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Keith Addison]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1498/

Published on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Calling All Warriors for Peace

by Olga Bonfiglio

When I first heard someone use the word, warrior, I was surprised, 
repulsed-but fascinated. An Annapolis-educated, former Navy fighter 
pilot told me he was a warrior. I had associated warriors with Native 
Americans and the Japanese Samurai, not the modern U.S. military.

The second time I heard someone use the word, warrior, was in a talk 
by Ed Tick, a Jungian psychoanalyst who has been working with Vietnam 
veterans with PTSD since 1978 and is now treating Iraq and 
Afghanistan War vets. He said one way we can help our veterans heal 
from their war wounds is to treat them as warriors. The audience, 
comprised mostly of peace activists gasped. Tick acknowledged the 
audience's dismay and apologized, but he insisted on using the term, 
warrior, because its meaning makes sense to the vets. My subsequent 
reading of his book, War and the Soul, changed my understanding of 
the warrior to the point that I am now advocating its use as an 
approach for peacemaking.

According to Jungian psychology, the warrior is an archetype, which 
is an idealized role or identity embedded in our cultural narratives 
that guides our minds and actions. Archetypes have a mythic quality 
that bid us to act out a particular role for certain situations 
automatically. The warrior archetype typically stirs men in their 
adolescence while it comes to women during middle age-as it did for 
Cindy Sheehan.

The key to Cindy's power is her warrior instinct to protect her loved 
ones-which with the loss of her son she extends to all soldiers. She 
calls herself a "Mother Bear" in her book, Not One More Mother's 
Child, and eventually would be referred to as "Peace Mom." Her 
warrior instincts, combined with her own sense of allegiance to the 
nation's democratic ideals, serve as the motivation behind her 
actions-including her acts of civil disobedience.

Peace activists who rekindle the warrior's innate desire to protect 
and cherish life in our nation and our world are key to fighting back 
the fascist-like directions this administration is taking us. 
However, to get there, we need a new vision of the warrior. 
Internationally-known inspirational speaker and Franciscan priest 
Richard Rohr describes this warrior as one who:

"Šsee[s] through and stand[s] against mass illusions of our time, and 
[is] willing to pay the price of disobedience. It takes warrior 
energy to see through the soft rhetoric of 'support our troops' which 
cleverly diverts us from the objective evil of war. It takes warrior 
energy to march to a different drum, disbelieve the patriotic trivia, 
and re-believe in the tradition of non-violence, civil resistance, 
and martyrdom."

Many people besides Cindy Sheehan have adopted such a vision of the 
warrior including Lt. Ehren Watada, the Vietnam Veterans Against the 
War, the Iraq Veterans Against War, Move-On.org, A.N.S.W.E.R. and 
United for Peace & Justice. Active duty soldiers in the Appeal for 
Redress are calling for a withdrawal of troops with some courageously 
testifying before Congress to do so. Generals are retiring their 
commissions in order to speak out. Gold Star Families for Peace, 
which Cindy founded, seeks not only to support families who have lost 
loved ones but "to be a positive force in our world to bring our 
country's sons and daughters home from Iraq, to minimize the human 
cost of this war, and to prevent other families from the pain [they] 
are feeling as the result of our losses." The Veterans for Peace, 
Military Families Speak Out Against the War, and Mothers Against the 
Draft are working to end the war and bring the troops home. 
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is trying to establish a 
cabinet-level Department of Peace in order to reduce domestic and 
international violence. And many local peace groups continue to stand 
out on public street corners-in all kinds of weather, all year 
long-demonstrating their objections to the war and the Bush policies.

Fighting wars based on deception and lies or without a just cause is 
not new. In 472 B.C.E. Aeschylus lost a brother in the war between 
the Persians and Athenians and wrote The Persians to illustrate how a 
war of choice mounted by the Persian king as "payment for [his] pride 
and godless arrogance" resulted in the terrible slaughter of common 
soldiers on both the Athenian and Persian sides. Leaders today, 
especially leaders of democracies, need to be called to task for any 
decision to go to war.

In this age where weapons of mass destruction are becoming more and 
more accessible, where pre-emptive strike is justified and where 
torture and perpetual war are deemed a legitimate government policy, 
it's no longer a matter of just "giving peace a chance", as the John 
Lennon song suggests, but for us human beings to find imaginative and 
practical ways of dealing

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Keith Addison]

Hi Joe

>Hi Keith;
>
>So much to say.  This thread is really where the rubber hits the 
>road isn't it? You have raised so many good points I don't want to 
>snip anything! So I'll use the same technique injecting my comments 
>here and there although I am not always a fan of what that does to 
>the archives if it goes back and forth a bit which I think this 
>thread might.

Yes, it'll get messy, never mind.

>Keith Addison wrote:
>
>>Hi Joe
>>
>>Thanks for this.
>>
>>You're so right that this "is definitely a question about
>>sustainability". Or the question about sustainability maybe.
>>
>>Your message continues a thread that's been weaving through the
>>discussions here for years and years. Just about everything you touch
>>on echoes most interestingly in the archives, and the echoes ripple
>>out to touch other echoes. It's all there, it's a whole body of work
>>by now, vastly bigger than any book, more depth, more scope, and it's
>>hyperlinked, you can grep it.
>>
>>
>Ripples and echoes are exactly the mechanics of what I am talking 
>about.  It is those that got us into this predicament ironically 
>albeit slowly, but those carrot and stick measures which Roberto 
>Verzola (in your link) says the corporations have used to 
>domesticate the human species, used (without really knowing it)

I think they know it pretty well. Bernays gave them that.

>a form of networking capitalizing on human weaknesses, some of the 
>vices like envy, pride, laziness, greed ( the corp's own worst 
>character trait) etc.  This was a form of networking in the sense 
>that when a new product is marketed, as soon as someone sees their 
>neighbour enjoying something, they want to get one too, and the 
>ripples spread.

That's part of it, it won't work on its own though.

>The networking was orchestrated through advertising

And the rest!

>and it didn't have organic roots but it operated according to the 
>same mechanics. It's more like the factory farming approach if you 
>will allow the analogy. All unhealthy and with no eye to the future.

Sure I'll allow the analogy, it's a good one. At any rate it's 
exactly the opposite of what I was referring to, opposite but not 
equal in any way. The effect is not systemic, it's just an add-on, a 
coat of paint, we're still there underneath, just as we always were. 
We can shuck it off any time, as millions and millions are now doing.

>>There are a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing just
>>that in the list archives, and they're not trying to find out where
>>to get their methanol, they're plotting ways out of this mess, and
>>putting them into action, and not just for themselves.
>>
>But these people have organic roots because they are motivated by 
>health and sustainability.

They seem to be all sorts of people with all kinds of backgrounds and 
a lot of different motivations, it's hard to type them. But they're 
active.

>But even if it was just for themselves, their drives are self 
>preservation and environment preservation for the future 
>generations.  Selfish motivations can be virtuous and this is a 
>truth which is heavily suppressed.

I don't think it's suppressed. It's the philosophical underpinning of 
Thatcherism, Reaganomics, trickle-down Friedmanism, neo-liberalism. 
Ayn Rand and so on.

Of course there's a kernel of truth to it, which is easily purloined 
and misdirected, by institutions and individuals both.

On the other hand, MLK said the end is implicit in the means, there's 
more than just a kernel of truth to that, and maybe means and 
intentions aren't that different in effect, when it comes to paving 
the road to Hell (or, more usually, to other people's Hells).

It's certainly true though that people can do the right thing for the 
wrong reasons with good effect rather than ill. But I don't think 
there's a true conflict between self-interest and doing the right 
thing for the right reasons - because it's the right thing to do.

>It is so dangerous to centralized power.  I can do things for purely 
>my own reasons which can be beneficial to many which is doublegood ( 
>in newspeak lol) But this gets into the concept of comonality which 
>is the cornerstone of Multitude in which diversity rules.  No 
>actually diversity IS, and comonality is the emergent rule.

Those are just words to me Joe. No need to explain, I get your 
meaning, but I'll stick to the archives.

>>This is one of many good places to start, essential reading - how to
>>kill a mammoth, from Roberto Verzola, secretary-general of the
>>Philippine Greens:
>>>tml>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628. 
>>html
>>
>>Roberto's talking of evil corporations, but it applies as well to
>>what lies behind the evil corporations and the mad empire builders
>>and the rest of the usual suspects - those with power. It's the story
>>of the last 10,000 years. We lose all the battles, yet it's a stor

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Joe Street]

Hi Jesse;

Thanks for your comments.  So your daughter is teaching you now eh?  How 
nice.  Well obviously you taught her a few things that sent her in that 
direction. What goes around comes around? You must be proud. Now you 
have to make her proud.  LOL!


Sorry for the trekie reference, but yeah.  Well the borg was a 
collective but I don't see the multitude being a collective of mindless 
automatons as they were depicted in that tv show.  But the analogy is a 
good one.  Multitude talks about organizing humanity in a similar way 
that a brain is an organization of networked nerve cells.  It allows for 
a great diversity in it's constituent cells but also allows for powerful 
organization according to commons. And yes you are right anything which 
has power has a weakness, it is Tai Chi.  Nothing has ever manifested 
which has no trace of it's opposite, but as an alternative to 
centralized power and control it is quite fascinating and hopeful.  
Especially considering a central power which is not exactly benevolent.


Joe

Jesse Frayne wrote:


Hi Joe,
A worthy question indeed:  how to attain a fair
society?  That  John Seed guy has an enormous
following, including our daughter (who lives on
MorningGlory Farm, featured in today's Toronto Star,
and is also a student at U of W).  When she comes home
she always goes though an intense culture shock:  we
are wasteful, we don't listen carefully enough, we are
not as willing to pitch in on a daily project.  The
collective is a paradise for her of uplifting
co-operation.

Sounds like 'Multitude' is a must read...

The Borg you refer to at the end of your letter were
self-serving, weren't they?  And vulnerable to 
viruses...  (Same combat technique worked for Jeff

Goldblum in Independance Day.)  Think:  what would Neo
do?

Jesse



--- Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 


Hi Keith;

I agree with you about the discussion around
handguns in the US.  It 
will not be a productive rant/argument anywhere and
will quickly 
degenerate into a shouting match.  But can we have a
more general 
discussion on the concept of force because it is a
very important issue 
to me in a more general sense.  I would consider
myself a pacifist 
(funny how that word contains 'fist') and I would
also defend myself or 
someone who needed help but I would prefer the world
worked by 
communication and care and consideration for each
other. I have offered 
my opinion here before that if ANYONE is to have
nukes for example, that 
everyone should have them, just out of a desire for
everyone to have 
equal consideration at the bargaining table. I'd
rather they were 
banished from existence on the planet and maybe one
day we will. The 
book I have been harping on called Multitude offers
a shining ray of 
hope for that world to exist through a new directly
democratic social 
order based on networking. I'd like to discuss the
problem of how we get 
from a world which is ruled by bullies where one
could argue that you 
better have might or get crushed, to the more
advanced and mature 
society which is based on things like compassion,
consideration of 
others, fairness for all, open communication, etc
etc?  This is 
definitely a question about sustainability.


John Seed came to town recently on his global tour
offering hope for 
people needing motivation from dispair. We talked
about many global 
issues both social and environmental and I didn't
come away from that 
meeting feeling particularly inspired or that some
really practical 
information was offered on how to adress these
issues in ways that have 
real tangible results like today. My expectation did
not match with the 
reality of what was being offered there.  There have
been some cases 
where groups have organized in the style outlined in
Multitude to 
achieve a common purpose and in many cases it did
unfortunately due to 
the circumstances involve some violence.  There are
many challenges that 
face such a reorganization not the least of which is
the presence of the 
party which carries the big stick (and hasn't been
walking so softly).  
To my way of thinking in order for a more peaceful
model to come about 
and reach some sustainable steady state, one of the
biggest  hurdles 
that has to be overcome is how to deal with the
power which is based in 
violence.  It seems like having to get over the
crest of a hill before 
you can get to easy sailing on the way down the
other side.  There are 
many many challenges that we face on this planet as
a species right 
now.  These are the 'interesting times' refered to
in that ancient 
chinese curse I guess.  I feel quite confident that
all of these issues 
can be sorted out democratically on a global scale
but before that can 
happen power needs to be wrested away from those who
hate the idea of 
distributed power. Is there a non violent way to do
this? Perhaps it is 
the economic power of the consumer which is the
ultimate weapon against 
this hierarchical power structure afterall it is
t

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Joe Street]

Hi Keith;

So much to say.  This thread is really where the rubber hits the road 
isn't it? You have raised so many good points I don't want to snip 
anything! So I'll use the same technique injecting my comments here and 
there although I am not always a fan of what that does to the archives 
if it goes back and forth a bit which I think this thread might.


Keith Addison wrote:


Hi Joe

Thanks for this.

You're so right that this "is definitely a question about 
sustainability". Or the question about sustainability maybe.


Your message continues a thread that's been weaving through the 
discussions here for years and years. Just about everything you touch 
on echoes most interestingly in the archives, and the echoes ripple 
out to touch other echoes. It's all there, it's a whole body of work 
by now, vastly bigger than any book, more depth, more scope, and it's 
hyperlinked, you can grep it.
 

Ripples and echoes are exactly the mechanics of what I am talking 
about.  It is those that got us into this predicament ironically albeit 
slowly, but those carrot and stick measures which Roberto Verzola (in 
your link) says the corporations have used to domesticate the human 
species, used (without really knowing it) a form of networking 
capitalizing on human weaknesses, some of the vices like envy, pride, 
laziness, greed ( the corp's own worst character trait) etc.  This was a 
form of networking in the sense that when a new product is marketed, as 
soon as someone sees their neighbour enjoying something, they want to 
get one too, and the ripples spread. The networking was orchestrated 
through advertising and it didn't have organic roots but it operated 
according to the same mechanics. It's more like the factory farming 
approach if you will allow the analogy. All unhealthy and with no eye to 
the future.


There are a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing just 
that in the list archives, and they're not trying to find out where 
to get their methanol, they're plotting ways out of this mess, and 
putting them into action, and not just for themselves.
 

But these people have organic roots because they are motivated by health 
and sustainability.  But even if it was just for themselves, their 
drives are self preservation and environment preservation for the future 
generations.  Selfish motivations can be virtuous and this is a truth 
which is heavily suppressed. It is so dangerous to centralized power.  I 
can do things for purely my own reasons which can be beneficial to many 
which is doublegood ( in newspeak lol) But this gets into the concept of 
comonality which is the cornerstone of Multitude in which diversity 
rules.  No actually diversity IS, and comonality is the emergent rule.


This is one of many good places to start, essential reading - how to 
kill a mammoth, from Roberto Verzola, secretary-general of the 
Philippine Greens:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.html

Roberto's talking of evil corporations, but it applies as well to 
what lies behind the evil corporations and the mad empire builders 
and the rest of the usual suspects - those with power. It's the story 
of the last 10,000 years. We lose all the battles, yet it's a story 
of unstoppable progress - in a way the battles and who "wins" them 
hardly matter.
 

But why did corporations rise and we lost?  It ONLY worked because 
collectively we chased the carrot. There are places where it didn't 
catch on and some of them are right outside my door in the local 
mennonite communities, but there the fire did not spread because the 
tinder was dampened with religious fervor ( lmao the semantics are so 
backwards it is laughingly appropriate).  Ok but it proves the point and 
also demonstrates that resistance is NOT futile.Resistance by the many 
is not futile but it is futile for the powermongers to try to resist the 
multitude. Perhaps resistance is not a good term. Maybe indifference is 
what is needed. Indifference to the carrot. Hard to be indifferent when 
you can't sustain yourself otherwise, but change that card and it's 
suddenly a different game. An indifferent game lol.


Might is right? Right is might? Wrong questions, surely - what we 
have to do is dump the might altogether. Only madmen need it.


What is it exactly that's progressed through the last 10,000 years? I 
think it's the idea that right is right.
 

Right has always been there. Hard to call that progress. Right doesn't 
mind if you choose the wrong path it just keeps on shining it's 
rightness and when you turn around you have a chance to see it. Like the 
sun. Problem is people think they know what is right even when they are 
wrong because they think their own shining light is brighter but they 
are behind the darkness of their own brightness so to speak.  It may be 
only when that light starts to fade or some really dark clouds result 
that they discover the error.


Roberto's comments clarify some important issu

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Jesse Frayne]

Hi Joe,
A worthy question indeed:  how to attain a fair
society?  That  John Seed guy has an enormous
following, including our daughter (who lives on
MorningGlory Farm, featured in today's Toronto Star,
and is also a student at U of W).  When she comes home
she always goes though an intense culture shock:  we
are wasteful, we don't listen carefully enough, we are
not as willing to pitch in on a daily project.  The
collective is a paradise for her of uplifting
co-operation.

Sounds like 'Multitude' is a must read...

The Borg you refer to at the end of your letter were
self-serving, weren't they?  And vulnerable to 
viruses...  (Same combat technique worked for Jeff
Goldblum in Independance Day.)  Think:  what would Neo
do?

Jesse



--- Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Keith;
> 
> I agree with you about the discussion around
> handguns in the US.  It 
> will not be a productive rant/argument anywhere and
> will quickly 
> degenerate into a shouting match.  But can we have a
> more general 
> discussion on the concept of force because it is a
> very important issue 
> to me in a more general sense.  I would consider
> myself a pacifist 
> (funny how that word contains 'fist') and I would
> also defend myself or 
> someone who needed help but I would prefer the world
> worked by 
> communication and care and consideration for each
> other. I have offered 
> my opinion here before that if ANYONE is to have
> nukes for example, that 
> everyone should have them, just out of a desire for
> everyone to have 
> equal consideration at the bargaining table. I'd
> rather they were 
> banished from existence on the planet and maybe one
> day we will. The 
> book I have been harping on called Multitude offers
> a shining ray of 
> hope for that world to exist through a new directly
> democratic social 
> order based on networking. I'd like to discuss the
> problem of how we get 
> from a world which is ruled by bullies where one
> could argue that you 
> better have might or get crushed, to the more
> advanced and mature 
> society which is based on things like compassion,
> consideration of 
> others, fairness for all, open communication, etc
> etc?  This is 
> definitely a question about sustainability.
> 
> John Seed came to town recently on his global tour
> offering hope for 
> people needing motivation from dispair. We talked
> about many global 
> issues both social and environmental and I didn't
> come away from that 
> meeting feeling particularly inspired or that some
> really practical 
> information was offered on how to adress these
> issues in ways that have 
> real tangible results like today. My expectation did
> not match with the 
> reality of what was being offered there.  There have
> been some cases 
> where groups have organized in the style outlined in
> Multitude to 
> achieve a common purpose and in many cases it did
> unfortunately due to 
> the circumstances involve some violence.  There are
> many challenges that 
> face such a reorganization not the least of which is
> the presence of the 
> party which carries the big stick (and hasn't been
> walking so softly).  
> To my way of thinking in order for a more peaceful
> model to come about 
> and reach some sustainable steady state, one of the
> biggest  hurdles 
> that has to be overcome is how to deal with the
> power which is based in 
> violence.  It seems like having to get over the
> crest of a hill before 
> you can get to easy sailing on the way down the
> other side.  There are 
> many many challenges that we face on this planet as
> a species right 
> now.  These are the 'interesting times' refered to
> in that ancient 
> chinese curse I guess.  I feel quite confident that
> all of these issues 
> can be sorted out democratically on a global scale
> but before that can 
> happen power needs to be wrested away from those who
> hate the idea of 
> distributed power. Is there a non violent way to do
> this? Perhaps it is 
> the economic power of the consumer which is the
> ultimate weapon against 
> this hierarchical power structure afterall it is
> this very collective 
> force which has been the tool, or rather the pawn of
> the power brokers 
> in the first place, and that which has allowed them
> to seize such an 
> inordinate measure of might.
> 
> If the hope for the future hinges on networking
> large numbers of 
> concerned and motivated individuals, then this ( the
> web) is an obvious 
> place for the power to grow.  There have been
> discussions about some 
> centralized groups aligning to seize control of
> information and the 
> network backbones.  I have been uneasy about this
> but lately I have been 
> having other thoughts.  In the mean time the googles
> and the you tubes 
> and cisco's of the world have been building the very
> infrastructure that 
> the multitude requires to grow and take shape into
> the entity Noam 
> Chomsky refers to as 'The other world superpower".
> Well that entity may 
> exist b

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Chip Mefford]

Keith Addison wrote:
> Hi Joe
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> You're so right that this "is definitely a question about 
> sustainability". Or the question about sustainability maybe.

lol!

Nice.

Notice how completely quiet I've been? I never
even read the thread. I have my point of view
and perhaps I'll blog it someday, but I really
didn't see how it was germane to this work
here, which I think is of more import.

Keep up the good work!

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Might is right?

[Keith Addison]

Hi Joe

Thanks for this.

You're so right that this "is definitely a question about 
sustainability". Or the question about sustainability maybe.

Your message continues a thread that's been weaving through the 
discussions here for years and years. Just about everything you touch 
on echoes most interestingly in the archives, and the echoes ripple 
out to touch other echoes. It's all there, it's a whole body of work 
by now, vastly bigger than any book, more depth, more scope, and it's 
hyperlinked, you can grep it.

There are a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing just 
that in the list archives, and they're not trying to find out where 
to get their methanol, they're plotting ways out of this mess, and 
putting them into action, and not just for themselves.

This is one of many good places to start, essential reading - how to 
kill a mammoth, from Roberto Verzola, secretary-general of the 
Philippine Greens:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.html

Roberto's talking of evil corporations, but it applies as well to 
what lies behind the evil corporations and the mad empire builders 
and the rest of the usual suspects - those with power. It's the story 
of the last 10,000 years. We lose all the battles, yet it's a story 
of unstoppable progress - in a way the battles and who "wins" them 
hardly matter.

Might is right? Right is might? Wrong questions, surely - what we 
have to do is dump the might altogether. Only madmen need it.

What is it exactly that's progressed through the last 10,000 years? I 
think it's the idea that right is right.

Roberto's comments clarify some important issues. One is that 
mammoths are not human, and neither is what we're facing today even 
remotely human. Another is that there's only one way to deal with a 
mad dog, every community knows that, and it's not seen as an issue of 
violence vs non-violence.

Less cause for alarm you say, in some ways yes, maybe, especially 
regarding the Internet as a network enabler. But I'm alarmed just the 
same, have been for awhile. I'm a bit startled to find myself sharing 
some of the views of the abhorrent End Times nutters, but I also tend 
to think that this is it, if for altogether different reasons. This 
is what the last 10,000 years have been leading to. This is the 
crunch. If we screw up this time there might not be a next time.

This is one of the things that worries me:

> > We'll win in the end, but as Chomsky just wrote in the Guardian, "A
> > predator becomes more dangerous when wounded". So does a rat in a
> > corner.

The problem with killing this particular mammoth is just that - if we 
drive it into a corner it's not going to say, "Hey guys, fair enough, 
you win, we'll just collect our gold Rolexes at the door and spend 
the rest of our days playing golf." A more likely outcome would be 
something like the Matrix, or Terminator (I've been thinking that for 
a lot longer than those movies have been around). Everybody loses.

There must be another way of doing this.

>In the mean time the googles and the you tubes
>and cisco's of the world

Well, don't give them too much credit, it's just the Internet growing 
really (still a baby).

>have been building the very infrastructure that
>the multitude requires to grow and take shape into the entity Noam
>Chomsky refers to as 'The other world superpower".

Chomsky refers to the global grass-roots movement against corporate 
globalisation as "the other superpower", but it was the New York 
Times that put the idea on the map, in an article by Patrick Tyler on 
February 17, 2003, following the largest anti-war rally in history 
two days earlier: "... the huge anti-war demonstrations around the 
world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two 
superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public 
opinion."

>Well that entity may
>exist but so far it has been fairly toothless. But people are using this
>infrastructure just the same and the interconnectedness, expression and
>sharing is happening.  Networks of connections between people with
>common interests are forming as a result of the investments these
>agencies are making in the infrastructure.

A lot of people are bothered by its apparent toothlessness, and so am 
I, but I think it could be an illusion. Maybe we're looking in the 
wrong place.

I recall saying here maybe three years ago or something like that 
that the global DIY biodiesel movement was by then "suitably out of 
control". That was in response to one of the list's periodic bouts of 
angst that the Big Guys would step on us any time now and put a stop 
to it. I think that was true then, and it's even more true now, it's 
not something that can be stopped.

At that time, and now, nobody had any real idea of how many people 
were brewing their own good fuel and how much of it they were 
brewing, but it was certainly many millions of gallons a year, and 
many millions of dollar-equivalents being lost t

[Biofuel] Might is right?

[Joe Street]

Hi Keith;

I agree with you about the discussion around handguns in the US.  It 
will not be a productive rant/argument anywhere and will quickly 
degenerate into a shouting match.  But can we have a more general 
discussion on the concept of force because it is a very important issue 
to me in a more general sense.  I would consider myself a pacifist 
(funny how that word contains 'fist') and I would also defend myself or 
someone who needed help but I would prefer the world worked by 
communication and care and consideration for each other. I have offered 
my opinion here before that if ANYONE is to have nukes for example, that 
everyone should have them, just out of a desire for everyone to have 
equal consideration at the bargaining table. I'd rather they were 
banished from existence on the planet and maybe one day we will. The 
book I have been harping on called Multitude offers a shining ray of 
hope for that world to exist through a new directly democratic social 
order based on networking. I'd like to discuss the problem of how we get 
from a world which is ruled by bullies where one could argue that you 
better have might or get crushed, to the more advanced and mature 
society which is based on things like compassion, consideration of 
others, fairness for all, open communication, etc etc?  This is 
definitely a question about sustainability.

John Seed came to town recently on his global tour offering hope for 
people needing motivation from dispair. We talked about many global 
issues both social and environmental and I didn't come away from that 
meeting feeling particularly inspired or that some really practical 
information was offered on how to adress these issues in ways that have 
real tangible results like today. My expectation did not match with the 
reality of what was being offered there.  There have been some cases 
where groups have organized in the style outlined in Multitude to 
achieve a common purpose and in many cases it did unfortunately due to 
the circumstances involve some violence.  There are many challenges that 
face such a reorganization not the least of which is the presence of the 
party which carries the big stick (and hasn't been walking so softly).  
To my way of thinking in order for a more peaceful model to come about 
and reach some sustainable steady state, one of the biggest  hurdles 
that has to be overcome is how to deal with the power which is based in 
violence.  It seems like having to get over the crest of a hill before 
you can get to easy sailing on the way down the other side.  There are 
many many challenges that we face on this planet as a species right 
now.  These are the 'interesting times' refered to in that ancient 
chinese curse I guess.  I feel quite confident that all of these issues 
can be sorted out democratically on a global scale but before that can 
happen power needs to be wrested away from those who hate the idea of 
distributed power. Is there a non violent way to do this? Perhaps it is 
the economic power of the consumer which is the ultimate weapon against 
this hierarchical power structure afterall it is this very collective 
force which has been the tool, or rather the pawn of the power brokers 
in the first place, and that which has allowed them to seize such an 
inordinate measure of might.

If the hope for the future hinges on networking large numbers of 
concerned and motivated individuals, then this ( the web) is an obvious 
place for the power to grow.  There have been discussions about some 
centralized groups aligning to seize control of information and the 
network backbones.  I have been uneasy about this but lately I have been 
having other thoughts.  In the mean time the googles and the you tubes 
and cisco's of the world have been building the very infrastructure that 
the multitude requires to grow and take shape into the entity Noam 
Chomsky refers to as 'The other world superpower". Well that entity may 
exist but so far it has been fairly toothless. But people are using this 
infrastructure just the same and the interconnectedness, expression and 
sharing is happening.  Networks of connections between people with 
common interests are forming as a result of the investments these 
agencies are making in the infrastructure.  I am wondering if there is 
less cause for alarm?  If a monopoly was to come about trying to control 
the information network what would be the result?  If it became 
unreasonably expensive or information was somehow censored or 
restricted, would the multitude allow it?  Concerned hackers have 
already shown there are ways around any effort to centrally control the 
e-world. Is it possible that the greedy efforts of these corporations 
are building a system which will inevitably defeat thier aims of total 
control?  I hope so.  The mightiest power of all is the power of the 
collective.  Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated.  LOL
Thoughts?

Joe


___