I think the discussions such as we have are one reason the Mega-corporations wish to control the Internet. Once you have control, it is easy to censor unwanted discussions.
The main thing we can do, as a group & individually is discuss the issues. This was one of the tenets of Robert Theobold (unfortunately no longer with us), another free-thinker as Keith is. As one of the enlightened, one needs to discuss issues with friends & work colleagues. Eventually the word will pass around. (Just try to be reasonable about the way the subjects are broached: otherwise one can be labelled a 'nutter' & the ideas dismissed.) We must speak out. There were many people in Germany that stayed silent when AH was in power, & we can now see the results. Try not to let history repeat in a really negative way! regards Doug On Wednesday 10 May 2006 11:00, Keith Addison wrote: > Hello Randall > > >Keith, > > > >You said: "We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. > >Please go and read it. You are complicit. What are you doing about > >it? You're obliged to > >be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, > >and if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other > >people > >or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is > >if you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not > >complicit because you're just a helpless slave." > > > >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to > >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government > >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they > >will need to be a person who: > > > >1) Is capable of being aware of EVERYTHING that the government does > >domestically and internationally. To do this, you will need to > >posess God-like omniscience > >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience) since you will need to be > >aware of all actions performed by every single one of the MILLIONS > >of people that are connected with the US Federal government alone -- > >currently almost 2 million employees if you ignore the Military and > >the Postal Service. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) How > >many more work for the various State and Local governments. How > >many people work for quasi-governmental institutions that have an > >effect on how the government operates? You quoted at least one > ><http://www.pipa.org/>. > > > >2) Is able to influence ALL of those MILLIONS of people, or possess > >the knowledge to choose which of the MILLIONS of people you will > >need to influence to force all the remaining people that you cannot > >influence (time, distance, numbers of people to speak with, > >whatever) to do what you wish them to do. > > > >3) Possess the knowledge of the correct thing to do, and how to > >communicate this to all of the people that you will need to > >influence to make what you want to happen occur in the manner that > >you desire. > > > >--- or --- > > > >Is it ok for someone to just complain about the actions of the > >government to avoid being labeled complicit, or do they have to > >actually DO something? > > > >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, > >how effective does their action have to be? > > > >How closely related to the government in question can someone be, > >and avoid responsibility for that government's actions? Are other > >countries that benefit from the actions of your government > >responsible for the actions of your government? If so, are the > >people of those other countries then also responsible for your > >governments actions?? > > > >What if you don't want to give the government money, but they take > >it under the threat of death or imprisonment? > > > >So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? How effective > >have your actions been? What will you do in the future to become > >more effective? When do you become blameless? Are you aware of how > >every single dollar is spent by our government? > > Whose is bigger eh? :-) > > What am I doing. For what's most visible, how about Journey to > Forever? Or running the Biofuel list and helping to keep it well fed > over the last six years with the kind of information you specify, > often against strong opposition by people who would much rather have > it left comfortably buried out of sight where the forces we're > discussing had put it, and put them too in a state of heedless and > uncaring ignorance, consent, and indeed complicity. > > That information includes about the best set of tools I've seen for > doing all the things you specify, including investigation, spin > detection, source checking, counter-spin and counter-propaganda, and > the kind of activism required if you're interested in a sustainable > future. There's been much discussion here on activism, and on "What > can I do?" That's all there too, with solutions offered. And I > provide this resource. > > That's just for now, some things. > > If you go back through my history you'll find an unbroken record of > opposing the forces we're discussing, in many ways and across a broad > range of issues, and in many countries, mainly but not only as a > campaigning journalist. It's something I've never stopped since I > started it long ago in white racist South Africa, where life tended > to be short and have ugly endings for people who felt they ought to > take a hand in deciding what they were going to be complicit in. > > You can find some of the details of all this at our website, and > elsewhere. I'm not planning on stopping. > > Have my actions been effective? Yes, they have. They are being now. > There are very many people, VERY many, who could give you their own > versions of that story. Together it all covers everything you specify > and much besides. Today these people work both separately and > together, sharing resources across a wide range of issues, the whole > range perhaps, via the Internet, the great leveller. Are their > actions proving effective? You could ask the WTO that question for > instance, or Monsanto, or ExxonMobil, or George Bush getting furious > because his ratings are plunging and he can't find anybody to nuke > for it. > > It's a heartless view to ask people who work for change what effect > they're having. It's the accumulative effect that creates change, and > when change happens it's impossible to say quite who or what "caused" > it. > > "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping > with a mosquito." -- the Dalai Lama. > > You point out the disadvantages now facing someone in a country that > for 30 years and more has been increasingly supine in all aspects of > the vigilance required of a population over their government and > business interests. > > Not to say it was exactly perfect before that, but for 30 years and > more your media have been abandoning the flock they're supposed to be > guarding and joining the wolves, and now they're owned and run and > controlled by a very small number of wolves, in straightforward > collusion with an effectively cloaked government-corporate sector > that has gone far beyond the pale of responsible citizenship. Now you > point at this and other such results of heedless inaction as > obstacles to taking action. But aren't you just an accessory, along > with everyone else who let it all just slip through your fingers? > > The law says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Civil society might > say that ignorance of things you should know is no excuse. One good > reason for that is that none of these things has been truly hidden. > The information has always been there for anyone who wanted to know. > That it wasn't in the NYT or on FoxNews doesn't mean it wasn't > available. In fact it's quite surprising how much has been plainly > recorded in the NYT and the other mainstream newspapers that people > say they had no way of knowing. > > There surely is no way of knowing something if you don't want to know > it. The opinion manufacturing industry doesn't really hide things as > much as render them uninteresting, the eye slides away, the ear goes > deaf, the attention wanders. It works very well. But not on > everybody. Not everybody is deaf to the truth, not everybody swallows > the lies. Why's that? How do some people - many people - manage to > stay awake and alert and undeceived? That has a bearing on > complicity, don't you think? > > Now there are many people who genuinely believe that if it's not on > FoxNews it never happened, it doesn't exist. The influence and sheer > lack of quality and responsibility of FoxNews is not something that > could occur in a vigilant society. Nevertheless, everything that > isn't on FoxNews does exist and is there to be found, if only you > look. > > >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The > >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and > >>if they are they think they're immune." > > It's the PROBLEM Randall, not the excuse! > > >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, > >how effective does their action have to be? > > If they do their best, then the question isn't very relevant. Unless > you claim that individuals are helpless and opposition to power is > doomed to failure. In fact lots of little half-heard voices whisper > that in your ear all the time, and in everyone else's ear too. Or > rather they don't have to whisper that now, not for a long time, they > only have to reinforce it. > > Yet now everyone is talking of an awakening, and there's no doubt > that it's true. Especially since about eight months ago. > > How do you think that happened? > > It could not have happened had there not been *enough* committed > people doing their best to make a difference and achieving worthwhile > results since long before, always keeping the light burning, no > matter how often it sputtered. Enough for the rest not to have any > shred of an excuse. > > People point to social apathy as a problem too, and instead of trying > to get to the root of it they claim it's basic human nature, so > what's the point of trying to do anything about it. If you're a > "believer" in social apathy, do you think people were as apathetic 50 > years ago as they are now? A hundred years ago? They weren't. They > were a lot more skilful too. So what changed? > > Nothing is really hidden, not even the reason that so many people > don't ask the questions they should. > > So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? > > What aren't you complicit in? > > You don't have to answer Randall. This is not how either of these > issues of torture and nuking Iran arose here. The talk of blame and > accountability and responsibility and complicity started when people > began protesting that it's not *their* fault, it's no use blaming > *them*. But there's rather more to both civic and personal > responsibility than avoiding blame. > > But look at the way you put it, in your second paragraph: > >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to > >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government > >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they > >will need to be a person who: > > You say it a couple of times. Is that the holy grail, do you think, > to avoid responsibility? I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you imply > that the bad actions are okay as long as you can't be held personally > responsible for them. That's just how you (pl) got to where you are, > with all the problems you describe. Do you really think that? If not > what do you think? > > Best > > Keith > > >--Randall > >Charlotte, NC > > > > > >__________________________________________________________________________ > >_ > > > ><< Heisenberg may have slept here >> > > > >"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening > >my xe." --Abraham Lincoln > > > >__________________________________________________________________________ > >_ > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > >Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:20 AM > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > > > >>Hello Mike > >> > >>Why're you so doubtful about it? Sure, it's always good to check, but > >>it's well in line with what usually happens, as people are saying. > >> > >>For instance (from the list archives): > >> > >>http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263 > >>War on Iraq: The World According to a Bush Voter > >>October 21, 2004 > >>"A new survey reveals that Bush supporters choose to keep faith in > >>their leader rather than face reality... > >>"But here is the truly astonishing part: as many or more Bush > >>supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago. > >>In other words, more people believe the claims today -- after the > >>publication of a series of well-publicized official government > >>reports that debunked both notions." > >> > >>That poll was conducted by University of Maryland's Program on > >>International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks. Here's > >>the poll report itself: > >>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealiti > >>es%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf > >> > >>Then there's this: > >>>Results of previous PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll [May 04]: > >>> > >>>- A 57% majority believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in > >>>carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support" > >>>to al-Qaeda > >>>- 82% either said that "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing > >>>substantial support to al Qaeda" or "experts are evenly divided on > >>>the question" > >>>- 45% believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been > >>> found - 60% believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of > >>> mass destruction or a major program for developing them > >>>- 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them or that experts are > >>>divided on the question > >>>- estimates of the number of US troop fatalities in Iraq varied widely > >>>- 59% were unaware that the majority of world public opinion is > >>>opposed to the US war with Iraq > >>>- asked how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has, the median estimate > >>>was 200 (the actual number is 6,000) > >>> > >>>These beliefs are closely correlated with intentions to vote for Bush. > >> > >>So what's new? > >> > >>Look at the escalation in the Iran case: > >>>Iran has not violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), > >>>does not have a nuclear weapons program, and poses no threat to its > >>>neighbors or the United States. Never the less, the spurious > >>>accusations in the media have precipitated a dramatic shift in > >>>public opinion. For more than a decade only 6% of the American > >>>people considered Iran the "greatest danger" to the United States. > >>>Now (according to a recent Pew Poll) that number has jumped to 27%. > >>>Also, the survey showed that "nearly half (47%) said they favored > >>>military action, preferably along with European allies, to halt > >>>Iran's nuclear program." -- Jim Lobe, "Polls: anti-Iran Propaganda > >>>Working", February 10, 2006 > >> > >>http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8526 > >> > >>Compare with the current Newsmax poll, it makes a curve. > >> > >>Worse than that, Lobe's piece three months ago said "the polls do not > >>show eagerness to take military action now or unilaterally. The > >>public appears to prefer an effort to settle the crisis > >>diplomatically, preferably through the United Nations." > >> > >>Now they do, and sod the UN. > >> > >>The Newsmax poll and what it says and who's spinning it if anyone is > >>irrelevant. The fact is that the US and Israel are creeping up on > >>nuking Iran, and dragging public opinion along behind, as usual. > >>Check it out for yourself. > >> > >>People are commenting on short term memory loss. It's not short term > >>memory loss, it's manufactured memory loss. > >> > >>Robert said "I think this illustrates how effective the propaganda > >>machine in the > >>US has become." Absolutely. > >> > >>"The United States is not only number one in military power but also > >>in the effectiveness of its propaganda system." -- Edward S. Herman > >> > >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The > >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and > >>if they are they think they're immune." > >> > >>>Hi Fritz and everyone...polls...hmmm...can anyone tell me more about > >>>"NewsMax"? > >> > >>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=NewsMax&fulltext=Search > >>Search results - SourceWatch > >>NewsMax.com > >> > >>Not to be trusted, but in this case it's irrelevant. Tear your eyes > >>away from what's disturbing you about NewsMax, and do some work on > >>the Internet, and in the Biofuel list archives, on the mounting US > >>fear and loathing campaign against Iran. > >> > >>How come your reply doesn't even mention the word "Iran" in your > >>haste to defend... to defend what, exactly? > >> > >>>Who owns and controls this website? Fritz, have you asked anyone at > >>>NewsMax how this poll was conducted? What are the demographics of > >>>this poll? I see on their homepage as of today, Sunday, May 7, just > >>>after 7pm Central (USA), where they site a poll WITH HEADLINES that > >>>says Fox is the most trusted news source in the U.S., but the story > >>>says we're talking about 11% of the public making it this "popular." > >>>Hey, if only roughly One in Ten Americans are fatheads, we're not > >>>doin' too bad. I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of > >>>these 11% make up the largest percentage of the "voters" who > >>>answered the NewsMax poll, which would make that "77%" actually an > >>>incredibly small percentage of the U.S. population. Sorry you > >>>blame the "ordinary" U.S. citizen for however our government acts. > >> > >>We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. Please go and read > >>it. You are complicit. What are you doing about it? You're obliged to > >>be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, and > >>if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other people > >>or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is if > >>you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not complicit > >>because you're just a helpless slave. > >> > >>>What's the deal in your country? Is your government walking in > >>>lockstep with the will of the overwhelming majority of the > >>>"ordinary" citizens? What is "ordinary" anyway???? I'll leave it > >>>at that for now. > >> > >>Sorry, you'll have to respond, those are the rules here. > >> > >>Keith Addison > >>Journey to Forever > >>KYOTO Pref., Japan > >>http://journeytoforever.org/ > >>Biofuel list owner > >> > >>>Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>> > >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fritz Friesinger > >>>To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:09 PM > >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > >>> > >>>Hakan, > >>>indeed dejea vu, > >>>once the propagandamachine works as fine as it does in the US,all > >>>out war is'nt far away! > >>>The whole polemic about the communist threat BS, it was and is > >>>always the migthy US who uses Nukes to intimidate the rest of the > >>>world! > >>>I dispise them for it and can not help to blame the ordinary US > >>>Citicen.As a German i felt long time the blame for the wrong doeings > >>>of the Nazis even i was born in 48! > >>>eh bien and so on... > >>>Get better Hakan,there is no time to loose > >>>Fritz > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hakan Falk > >>>To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:23 PM > >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > >>> > >>> > >>>Fritz, > >>> > >>>Have a strong feeling of dejavu and this time I will save the info in > >>>a special place. Pre Iraq, I saw similar figures and also some > >>>support on this list. Today it is overwhelming negative numbers in > >>>support for the Iraq war and approval ratings for the president. > >>>Maybe I should frame this, for future use. > >>> > >>>Talk about a violent population, 77% in support of military action > >>>and killing Iranians. In two years we will have 65% in denial and > >>>against the US engagement in Iran. It will be an even bigger mess > >>>than Iraq, with attacks all over the world. > >>> > >>>Hakan > >>> > >>>At 20:07 07/05/2006, you wrote: > >>> >just received > >>> > > >>> >Fritz > >>> > > >>> >Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran > >>> > > >>> >An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are > >>> >overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military > >>> >action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. > >>> > > >>> >Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more > >>> >than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons > >>> >program are not working. > >>> > > >>> >A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a > >>> >greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. > >>> > > >>> >NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and > >>> >share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. > >>> > > >>> >Here are the poll questions and results: > >>> > > >>> >1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons > >>> >program are working? > >>> >Working: 7 percent > >>> >Not Working: 93 percent > >>> > > >>> >2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's > >>> >nuclear weapons program? > >>> >Yes: 11 percent > >>> >No: 89 percent > >>> > > >>> >3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein > >>> >did before the Iraq War? > >>> >Yes: 88 percent > >>> >No: 12 percent > >>> > > >>> >4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop > >>> >their program? > >>> >Yes: 77 percent > >>> >No: 23 percent > >>> > > >>> >5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? > >>> >U.S.: 45 percent > >>> >Israel: 35 percent > >>> >Neither: 20 percent > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
