TS 2015

May 23 at 1:14pm

What's in your head?

Notice in the political discourse on FB how rare it is to see any ideas that come from a sense of agency.

It seems like most of the narratives are based on some sort of fear or anger. Even the logic of radicals seems to be deeply rooted in the mindset of patriarchal capitalism. People seem to see those ethics as inevitable.

I think I see people expect that democracy is going to be provided for them. It's a nation that expects to be served. It's a nation of voyeurs and judges. Even Socialist and Anarchist narratives have much of the same emotional and logical framing as mainstream logic.

I think there needs to be a movement that provides narratives that are outside of the box.

Why bother reacting to every daily news item when there is no future focus? Why bother reinforcing the fears and anger that reinforce the mindset of capitalism?

Some group should step-up to help break the cognitive chains that bind people to that way of thinking.

---

May 22 at 3:40pm

Seeing my environmental pals posting some stuff.

I've basically given-up on 'single-issue' activism since I believe only understanding how issues are connected can bring progress.

You can't have climate justice when most Americans are conditioned by the media and cultural narratives to derive self-esteem by what they consume. Environmental activists have had a false focus on this issue for about 40 years.

Deal with the American psyche if you want to save the environment.

Deal with cultural conditioning if you want to see progress on any single issue.

April 25

‪#‎activistunity‬

"Preaching to the Choir" is a valid tactic for in-group unity, but not for outreach. Social-Democrats, Socialists, Anarchists etc all have separate groups where they work together to share ideas. That's essential for promoting unity.

This group is simply an attempt to create a much larger choir to focus on shared principles.

‪#‎generativity‬

Remember your own political evolution. For example, you may have been a Liberal at one time, but over time you evolved to become a social-democrat, socialist or anarchist. You may have been a conservative or a-political, but eventually you became a radical.

Try to remember all political belief is in flux in that way.

“Don't be in a hurry to condemn because they don't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today.” ― Malcolm X

-

April 14

about the nationalist aspect of an electoral tactic.

revolutionary party = platform for outreach

A political party should be seen purely as a means of social-conditioning. An anarchistic party should seek to impart information as the primary goal.

A nation exists. An anarchistic party should seek to hack it, in order to impart the universal principles of anarchism into public perceptions.

In such a philosophy, a politician is both provocateur and agent of transparency.

Leftist ideas are coming from concerns of normalizing the system. Post-Left ideas on electoral tactics seek ways to hack it.

April 2

George Orwell described nationalism as an emotion. It's a mixture of credulity and pride. It's what hollows-out ones brain for the sake of good feelings.

That's the emotion I see in partisan politics as well. Regardless of his history of corporatist, militarist and authoritarian policies, and regardless of the effects those policies have on normalizing structural violence, any time Obomber does something that can be portrayed as positive, he is hailed as a sort of cross between MLK and Einstein.

The nationalism of Liberals helps normalize structural violence. I'm not having any of it. ~t