April 7, 2011

Basic Question and Thoughts

Filed under: American Revolution, Civil Disobedience, Freedom, Relocalization — Russ @ 3:30 am


The temporary reflation of the bubble seems stable for the moment (though that could rapidly change at any time). Thanks to oligopoly position, fraudulent accounting, and every form of robbery, banks and corporations are claiming record “profits”, and executives are extracting record personal looting figures.
These obscenities are being accompanied by an ever more vicious direct assault on the people, as everywhere the government slashes public interest spending. Every cent of these cuts is then redirected to the corporations and the rich. Nowhere is government spending actually being cut. On the contrary every government budget continues to increase. The spending is simply redistributed upward. What we have today is the most thoroughgoing welfare state the world has seen. But it’s welfare for the corporations, welfare for the rich. The purpose of government, as it sees itself, is now nothing but to serve as bagman and goon. Any public interest spending which continues to exist does so only out of inertia and political duress. If they could absolutely wipe out Social Security and Medicare tomorrow, they would.
It’s clear that this is civil war. It’s clear that the government has voluntarily abrogated all legitimacy. America is at war with economic terrorism in the form of the banks and corporations, and the government is their thug. Nothing could be more clear than this.
And yet the people remain complacent, meek, even smug. Even as they’re being liquidated in real time, they think only of how to continue to party. It’s clear that the mass consciousness is not organically reaching the brink (though as with the bubble, that could change quickly).
So my question is, does it follow that the growing few who understand all this should, for the time being, forget about trying to figure out how to “reach the masses” and instead focus on slowly growing and protecting a movement of self-selected activists?
I suppose that’s what we’ve been trying to do all along, but we still seem unclear about exactly what the strategy is. I’ve been mulling it over, and to use myself as an example, I want to prepare myself as well as possible on a personal level while trying to get a movement going which does the following:
1. Engages in “apolitical” economic relocalization as much as possible.
2. Among committed citizens, also forms a nucleus for political relocalization. Systematic political education goes on among this group. This group must also formulate a politically and spiritually inspiring philosophy and mindset to accompany the toolkit of actions. 
3. To what ever extent possible, this nucleus becomes involved in local politics. But this may not be an initial priority everywhere.
4. To whatever extent government and corporate power hinder the activities of (1), the political activists take any opportunity for broader political education of various producers and perhaps the public.
5. Wherever necessary and possible, the locally involved political activists take on responsibilities of local and regional government, gradually achieving objective legitimacy. But actual assertion of authority against parasitic “official” structures would have to wait for later.
6. To whatever extent possible, these organizations, at whatever level of development, would come together to consult in a kind of federation. To whatever extent possible, they could coordinate and assist one another.
7. This structure would then gradually make its presence known to the public, mostly through “apolitical” education about the economy and relocalization, but also political education, wherever it seems that would be fruitful.
8. Then, once the next, terminal crash comes, and/or the general deterioration into permanent depression accelerates, the movement will be prepared to offer a home, a means of self-help, and a realm of action, to any size mass of people ardent and desperate for a solution.
So there’s a few thoughts on the gradual building of a movement under our current adverse conditions, where it looks like we have a long wait and gradual deterioration ahead of us.
So then much of what I write from here on will be dedicated to discussing elements of this program in detail.
Any suggestions or criticisms? Maybe the hardest part to accept is how small it starts. All the old ideologies started with resounding, apocalyptic proclamations and goals. But I don’t see how one can start that way today. The system is too monumental, such that any attempt to butt heads with it will only get the upstart head smashed like an eggshell. No, for as long as the kleptocracy stands, the successful movement will have to operate primarily through preserving itself in the face of tyranny, and secondarily through undermining that tyranny.
But every step of the way, we prepare for the kleptocracy’s fall.


  1. You’re on to the problem!

    How does a small minority who see a clear problem deal with a majority who don’t see it at all…

    And another small minority at the other end who “get it” but are perfectly happy with the game… and will defend it vigorously.

    I think you’ve got to draw people in with something that doesn’t freak them out… but at the same time almost inadvertently begins to weaken the global banking and financial structure while building something to supplement and/or eventually replace it.

    And can do it without directly challenging existing structures which scares the crap out of regular people…

    I’ve occasionally here touched on my Commons-dedicate Account “invention” if you want to call it that… whose mechanism allows a viable micro-transaction not otherwise practicable which can have more effect than may at first be apparent when networked (a tech response to Citizens United Decision).

    A neutral, and fairly innocuous idea. But there’s actually a bigger vision behind it.

    Its actually a design for a P2P (peer-to-peer) network controlled and OWNED by its users and not governments or corporations, and that transactions in the P2P space be able to be made via this network with no transaction fee.

    In other words, while I’ve focussed on politics and charity… its a more than viable competitor for a PayPal or any similar… with capabilities it doesn’t have…

    (Like direct peer-to-peer capability for co-ordination of funds for whatever purpose.)

    This network (unlike facebook or corporate or govt controlled) can provide the backbone for addressing problems in Identity protection and Independent network resilience for a couple of reasons … if neutral and user owned I believe it will tend towards natural monopoly AND USERS OWN their information and the system has the capability of defending the rights of its owners.

    This is a very viable model and I’m starting to reach some interesting people but its a hard road…

    And obviously not entirely welcomed by all interests.

    (I recognize its rather paradoxical to have this utilize currencies ‘with problems’… but once in existence… the network can serve as an anchor for other formulations suitable for localized utility.)

    Demo http://www.Chagora.com

    (not pretty or fancy in presentation but mechanism, database, etc are very real… and patented.)

    Blog http://CulturalEngineer.blogspot.com

    Comment by Tom Crowl — April 7, 2011 @ 8:33 am

    • Yes, I’ve seen you mention that before. I hope it’s going well. We need to try out every kind of alternative.

      Comment by Russ — April 7, 2011 @ 9:01 am

  2. Russ, a good post! To answer your first question, I say “both.”

    I think the first thing to do is to put together a constitutional convention. We need to see if all of us regular players here can agree enough to make some written declarations.

    I like your apolitical stance. I personally will not approach this any other way. Also, I know you do not advocate violence, and neither can I. I wish only to work for peaceful solutions. In my view, it’s rather like the island campaigns of WWII where some of the islands were just bypassed instead of confronted.

    Comment by Johnny D. — April 7, 2011 @ 8:43 am

    • Thanks JD, I’ve been meaning to get back to the convention idea. That can be a useful exercise in public education, and is capable at any time of escalating into real action.

      By apolitical I was referring to undertaking economic relocalization without propagating an overt anti-corporate and anti-government ideology, although those are implicit. Then, wherever events gave the occasion, these conclusions could be worked in.

      I said that because I figure most people still aren’t ready to respond to a message like, “Fight Monsanto tyranny. Grow your own Victory Gardens and save your own Freedom Seeds.”

      But far more are already becoming interested in the garden and the seeds in themselves, because people can sense that these things are becoming necessary. What’s more, people are finding spiritual meaning in such things. So in most cases I’d recommend just focusing on those without initially emphasizing the political aspects.

      That’s one example. (BTW, I started my own tomato seeds yesterday.)

      Comment by Russ — April 7, 2011 @ 8:54 am

  3. Thanks! Can’t say more at this point… things may be moving… at least taking first steps. And in spare moments let your mind roll around with the idea… some surprising implications may arise.

    (e.g. I don’t even want to get into the do-it-yourself possibilities for collective, voluntary self-organization for some things other institutions are doing so poorly..[a down the road emergent potential]… cause that can really get certain sectors nether hairs in a tangle! Though such a structure might do a few things better! Just offering it up for debate! But that could never happen with corporate or government control of this network.)

    I’m finding that much of discovery is not so much about putting better glasses on… as it is about taking old blinders off.

    This is really about restoring P2P capabilities which have been interrupted since we really WERE locally based… that is… since when we were hunter-gatherers… and ALL transactions were un-burdened by intermediaries fucking it up and leaching off of it…)

    Comment by Tom Crowl — April 7, 2011 @ 9:26 am

  4. The reason people are not rising up are many but not complicated. Just one:

    If 45,000,000 people were standing on food lines instead of swiping a ‘debit card’ for food, even a dead controlled wholly owned press couldn’t hide it.

    Comment by LeeAnne — April 7, 2011 @ 11:41 am

  5. …and those 45,000,000 food cards can be turned off with a few key strokes on a JP Morgan Chase Bank computer somewhere in India.

    Comment by LeeAnne — April 7, 2011 @ 11:50 am

    • Your second comment is the first thing I thought of in reading the first. I wonder how much longer before they try to dismantle the expanding program. Will it be affected by a government “shutdown”?

      The card was sold as being easier and less humiliating for the recipient, and I suppose that’s true. But ironically, as you point out it also renders the recipients invisible to one another and society in general.

      I’m not sure about the part about JPM or other banks being involved.

      Comment by Russ — April 7, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

      • Yes, its that lack of communication between people that is profoundly deceptive. It short circuits communication between people at the same time it renders the social abuse invisible.

        I’m so glad you’re still on the job Russ and hope you never get discouraged. Your clear vision is invaluable in this struggle.

        Comment by LeeAnne — April 7, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

      • About the banks. JPMorgan Chase has the government food stamp and welfare swipe card business; at least for New York State. I don’t know about the rest of the country. I believe they have a good piece of that as well. They acquired the business from Citi and charge $3 a swipe for the cash portion of the business that is probably the Welfare portion. That’s on top of any fee at a non-Chase ATM.

        I love the rationalization for these fees on the poor, disabled and elderly; that the banks just have to make this money.

        I marvel seriously at the audacity of those now in power. They must be crazy.

        Comment by LeeAnne — April 7, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

      • Yeah, it’s nasty.

        And thanks, LeeAnne.

        Comment by Russ — April 7, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

      • I’m pretty sure that was no accident! Can you imagine hundreds of food stamp users meeting in grocery lines and beginning to talk?

        My own situation is critical. But my main concern is the society I live in. I come to your blog to be around people who see the reality, but I don’t have much to offer at the moment. If the time comes for education, I AM a compelling educator, so there’s that. Let’s hope people are not too tainted by the pathocracy to hear a message of decency.

        Comment by janice — April 12, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

      • Thanks, Janice. I guess the swituation’s getting difficult for a lot of us, but hopefully coming here signifies that we’re not going to surrender.

        Comment by Russ — April 13, 2011 @ 6:02 am

  6. suggestions to volatility blog

    A way toward cultural survival:

    Warren Mosler was born in CT and went to school to learn something about economics/finance. He became a sort of financial wizard then retired in the late 1990s from managing a successful hedge fund which still operates in Chicago. He currently owns a small bank in Florida and Valence Motors (fancy racing car mfgr) which is located in the Virgin Islands. In the late 1990s, he studied economics at the London Sch of Economics for several years where he collaborated with the Australian economist Dr Wm F (Bill) Mitchell who obtained his PhD in UK in the 1970s and is currently on the staff at the Uof NSWales in Australia and he operates CofFEE an operation devoted to promoting full employment. Bill Mitchell and Dr LR Wray (UM at KC) are the early proponents of what is currently called modern money economics; B Mitchell likes the term MMT and many people use that term to refer to this new way of understanding how the economy should work if the government actually worked for the ‘people’ rather than for the ‘elite’. My interpretation is that he uses the word theory because no actual government operates the way he thinks they could to facilitate full employment. Most of what I call the MMT-proponent crowd seem to try to act to get the economy of sovereign countries (print and purchase in their own currency, observe floating currency exchange, etc.) to minimize employment and to concerve resources. Personally, I have a bit of difficulty with financial/ economics language, so sometimes it is difficult to understand.

    As everyone knows, the government today works as if the money used for its spending has to be borrowed from the ‘wealthy’. Actually, the government should work for all but it doesn’t because the lazy, cunning ‘wealthy’ like guaranteed interest receipts on their ‘wealth’. Most people, including many economists who are foils of the ‘elite’ educate the politicians to believe in some ideas which should be myths by now, namely, that the government can only spend money which a wealthy person/group has and would be willing to lend for a ‘right’ price (interest rate). Since Nixon signed the appropriate legislation in 1971, the US Treasury has had the power to create its own money without borrowing from anyone; as far as I have studied, that act was not done to facilitate the development of MMT (the creation of this idea is something I will continue to investigate). USA ‘fiat’ currency is only printed by the USA and for various reasons has evolved to become the currency in which oil is priced. Unfortunately, the Congress people do not understand economics, but believe what they do because some ‘expert’ advised them. While modern money is created by arbitrary computer keystrokes, the Congress has retained the power to set limits (control the debt level; apparently, this is unnecessary and is not done in Canada). This turned out to be unfortunate because the members of Congress only know what they have been taught and choose to believe; the banksters control that information and far be it from me to try to act as teacher of economics (as we all are aware, bank lobbyists have found it very convenient to advise Congress persons on writing laws which have effects which frequently benefit the lobbyists’ employers). While such efforts have yet to be conducted with much enthusiasm/insight, those few MMT-promoting economists who do understand seem to be able to understand the magnitude of the challenge to try to educate incomptents/misinformed individuals who are currently running the tv shows and newspaper editorials; for instance, they have been unable to educate NY Times liberal economics expert Paul Krugman (a week or two ago, there were a lot of comments written by economics experts to try to explain MMT to Paul; I do not recall that he ever acknowledged his misunderstanding or had changed his mind regarding their ideas. This is unfortunate in that he is the only nationally prominent ‘liberal’ economics blogger).

    We all recognize the at least 95% of those politicians who would pretend to run the government of the USA are essentially incompetent (would it be reasonable to say they are rotten?). Further, much, if not most, of the information provided on newscasts is a waste of verbage. If you saw the film ‘Inside Job’, it is clear that the economists are also completely whacko if not simple crooks. If you read NC, Yves S exposes obvious fraud and cover-up efforts every day. It is time that the public be afforded an opportunity to intervene in their own survival; question is how? I don’t know. However, I think it looks as if a new economics profession/workforce will have to be trained to serve the ‘people’ rather than the ‘elite’. Many of the current economists do not understand basic principles or they have been bribed to continue to argue in an unenlightened fashion. I can assure you that if the reader of this comment already thinks he knows it all because the markets suggest precious metals are all the rage or that the USA is going broke, this recommendation will likely fall on deaf ears. On the other hand, some or all of the many alternative strategies which disappointed citizens may wish to try because of their current dire economic situation have already been anticipated by the crooks who currently control things, so why not spend your time trying to learn a little fundamental accounting-based economics.

    After I had initially mentioned the topic of MMT on this blog some time back, the troops seemed to quickly misinterpret the fundamental characteristics of that economic approach (don’t worry, Paul K did likewise). I think that Scott Fullwiler tried to explain things to some of you, but you may need a simpler explanation such as that indicated/linked in the following recommendation.

    1. Watch this series of videos by Warren Mosler; in Part 1, he refers to Paul Davidson (an economist associate).

    a) Warren Mosler speaks at PK conference, Part I

    b) Warren Mosler speaks at PK conference, Part II

    c) Warren Mosler speaks at PK conference, Part III

    2. Read Wayne’s autobiography 7 deadly frauds available as a book or
    download the free pdf at http://www.moslereconomics.com

    Click to access 7DIF.pdf

    3. Read the 16-17 items mentioned under the heading ‘mandatory-reading’

    While at the YouTube.com site, you may wish to view some of the Mosler 900 racing vehicles which Valence Motors makes. By the way Warren ran in the CT senate race in 2010 and garnered around 10000 votes; should he make a presidential run, you might wish to familiarize yourself with his thoughts.

    As a side note, you might be interested in the ideas of Jim Luke, who teaches economics from a MMT perspective and writes a blog at EconProph.com (he works the blog in between teaching times; has some timely insights).

    Comment by William Wilson — April 7, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

  7. I have not read all of the other comments, so forgive me if I repeat ideas already expressed by others.

    I think it is a mistake to insist on being “apolitical.” There is a common core ideology to the American “Left” and “Right,” but this common core has been purposefully obscured by wedge issues and caricaturizations of “the other” that deter, if not prohibit, understanding one another.

    This common core has been the political basis major movements in America time and again, and there’s no reason this movement should turn its back on it.

    Indeed, focusing on that common core makes the corruption of the current system readily apparent. While Tom Crowl is correct that the majority don’t see the problem, EVERYBODY senses it, they just assume “the other” is the source of it.

    There are dangers in doing this, as many self-professed libertarians these days are actually unwitting neoliberal dupes, who can’t seem to understand that corporations are creatures of the state and just as much of a danger, if not a bigger one, than the state itself. But I have hope, even for them.

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — April 7, 2011 @ 10:15 pm

    • Tao, did you see my response to Johnny D above? I tried there to clarify what I meant by “apolitical”. It’s a tactical consideration, and only in certain practical contexts.

      I don’t mean that we shouldn’t strive for a coordinating ideology. On the contrary, (2) calls for it.

      I meant that within the framework of (3), (6), and (7) this politic should initially be propagated according to perceived opportunities.

      But I wasn’t assuming an apolitical mindset among the activist citizenry; I was proposing long-term strategy.

      Obviously, this blog, for example, is not apolitical; I’m very clear on direct democracy, relocalization, anti-corporatism, and anti-statism. And those are the main tenets of my endeavor.

      Comment by Russ — April 7, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

      • Okay. As I said, I hadn’t read any comments (other than having my eye caught by the first one).

        Glad you’re on top of things. 🙂

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — April 7, 2011 @ 11:36 pm

      • Thanks, Tao, for helping me figure this stuff out. 🙂

        Comment by Russ — April 8, 2011 @ 2:52 am

  8. I would focus a bit less on relocalization and include the concept of the commons. The air we breathe and the water we drink moves all around the planet. You and I can exchange ideas with thousands of miles separating our bodies. Humans need to learn how to be good stewards of the earth and that means having a global perspective. People need working solutions which may be small in that they are specific and/or localized, but they can be designed, coordinated, and shared on a large scale.

    Politics and economics are inseparable. Engaging in new economic relations will create its own politics. It would probably be best to forgo all commonly used political terms. Take your number six item, for example, where you use the term federation. I don’t think it helps in understanding the intent, which is plainly stated as: “To whatever extent possible, coordinate and assist one another”. If there’s some characteristic of a federation that you want to invoke then make reference to that. Federalism implies top-down control of some aspects of society.

    Comment by Karl — April 8, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

    • Thanks, Karl. I agree that reinvigorating the concept of the commons is an essential part of the project. It’s part of the basic goal – after all, we want to abolish property in land and resources, don’t we?

      I was suggesting that the tactical tempo may differ from place to place: Some places may be ready for organized squatting right now, others may need prolonged, tortuous education.

      So I want to come up with a standard for activism which can be applied to any scenario, any environment however adverse.

      I agree that separating politics and economics is to an extent arbitrary, but unfortunately that’s the way people operate. So I offer suggestions for separating economic relocalization from the political radicalism which ought to accompany/follow from it. I figure the political education should be parallel to it at first, but the evidence is that people in general are short-sighted enough that they won’t listen to that kind of thing until it hits them personally. That’s why I suggest starting out (in most places) with economic relocalization, leaving out overt political content. So for now it’s mostly a matter of building the educational framework and training cadres.

      Federation doesn’t imply top-down anything, except in the perverted lexicon of today. On the contrary, we ought to fight to reclaim the term to signify power emanation from the ground upward, with higher levels of council being delegated only on the basis of mandated, instantly recallable delegates.

      Comment by Russ — April 9, 2011 @ 2:27 am

      • My reading of the definitions of Federation differ from yours I guess. This is the problem. The political terms we use are too abstract. Part of me agrees with you about reclaiming older meanings of words. Communism is a simple concept and a good word, but people give it all sorts of bizarre interpretations. It’s more important, however, that we show alternatives and talk about their design, rather than having to worry about the labels we place on them.

        You mention having levels of councils. That sounds like a rather outdated notion to me, but it’s those sort of operational features that need to be discussed rather than the more abstract concepts.

        Comment by Karl — April 9, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

      • Hi Karl, I’m not sure why you think councils (and federation) are outdated.

        On the contrary, both Peak Oil and the neoliberal onslaught indicate that starting anew with council government is the only way we can redeem democracy.

        We’re going to be forced into that anyway, as “the government” withdraws from providing what classical Millian liberals considered to be its core functions.

        So I think it’s time for citizens to provide these services for ourselves.

        Comment by Russ — April 10, 2011 @ 3:37 am

  9. So much for the highly touted “revolution” in Egypt. With or without Mubarak, the military is still firmly in control:

    From Aljazeera:

    “Military police have recently been accused of baseless arrests, abuse and torture, incommunicado detentions and slapdash trials that may result in multi-year prison sentences for protesters.

    Meanwhile, the unelected civilian leadership led by former Transportation Minister Essam Sharaf has drafted a law, subject to the military’s approval, that would give the state power to ban strikes and protests – a nod toward both the generals’ and the ruling cliques’ interest in protecting their business interests.

    The military’s heavy-handed street actions have been mirrored by its icy behaviour toward the broad-based youth coalition that drove the revolution and remains the bearer of its legitimacy.”

    Comment by black swan — April 10, 2011 @ 8:03 am

    • We always said nothing works unless the citizens remain vigilant on behalf of their freedom.

      That was one of the core precepts of the American Revolution. The people started going derelict in 1787-88. Now we need to resume the original fight.

      Comment by Russ — April 10, 2011 @ 10:39 am

  10. Jesse has a good post up today:


    This past Tuesday, I had lunch with a friend, and we discussed some of the issues Jesse touches on. One of the biggest concerns that I have right now is that almost everyone seems to recognize there’s a problem, but very few are able to look past biases and prejudices against their political “opposite” to understand what that problem is. It’s not clear to me how we can peacefully transition into a truly workable system. All I know is that it will be impossible to make such a transition through violence.

    As Jesse says “One way or the other this situation will be resolved. I am very concerned about the outcome and the way in which the US will get there, and the collateral damage that may be inflicted on the rest of the world.”

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — April 10, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

    • Thanks, Tao, I’ll check it out.

      We can be sure that individual acts of violence don’t work. The history of the Russian populist movement and the Spanish anarchist movement proves that.

      I think an American movement will probably need to prepare itself to fight thugs and to resist the worst afflictions of the police.

      As for the collateral damage inflicted by the empire, that’s already extreme and is bound to get worse, for as long as the empire exists.

      Comment by Russ — April 10, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

  11. I think what is still needed before any attempt to implement behavioral change on a mass scale is a shift or redefining of the philosophies that engender and restrict our actions. As you made brilliantly clear regarding the first American Revolution, the previously inconceivable (even revolutionary) idea that Parliament “derives its authority and power from the constitution, and not the constitution from the Parliament” took root more than a decade prior to popular resistance. In our current age, I have heard no paradigm-shattering arguments as fundamentally reorganizing as the redefining of “constitution” was then – indeed, as it has been for over 200 years.

    So what is the philosophical shift this age is yearning for? Has someone already formulated it in some overlooked, disreputable fringe? Is it already seeping up from the underground while we continue to fumble about, searching for an antidote to the pervasive aimless insignificance of modern life? The lack of any reasonable popular or political reaction to the financial crisis comes more from people’s sense of powerlessness and purposelessness than from their lack of a worthwhile to-do list. Redefine the argument. Then the people and the politicians will risk their lives to enact change that brings meaning back to their lives.

    I hope you will not give up on untangling the garbled doublespeak of American history for us, your readers. We need plans of action to keep us sane in the present and prepared for the future, but that future will only come when one voice can utter a thought so unimaginable that it will set our imaginations on fire. That thought may come from one of your readers reading one of your posts.

    Comment by Chris Gates — April 11, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

    • I think that spark may come from our mid-level military leadership; when a majority of them realize that they can’t in good conscience continue to consign the poor to a brutish life as cannon fodder.

      Unfortunately, I believe that without some violence, this society won’t change.

      Comment by tawal — April 11, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

      • My concern is that our mid-level military leadership are dominated by Christianist reformists who have no conscience.

        And I share your belief that we won’t see a meaningful change in our society without violence. I only fear what that change will be . . .

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — April 12, 2011 @ 12:36 am

      • The prospects are disheartening, to say the least. The fundamentalists are essentially Nazi wanna-bes, and like you say, the military is ridden with them.

        Comment by Russ — April 12, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

    • Thanks Chris. You bring up excellent points, and I hope our project here can help figure out the puzzle.

      Comment by Russ — April 12, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

  12. From HuffPo

    Finally, some light at the end of the tunnel. A revolution in the making imposed by nature and the dimwitted international welfare-dependent nuclear cabal:
    Japan’s Youth Build Generation’s Identity In Time Of Crisis

    The discussion of leadership in the last paragraph could be right off the page of the Attempter blog; an idea whose time has come:

    “What’s missing is a group of culturally prominent figures,” he said. “What we need is a younger figure who has an educational background and can voice a new attitude.”

    Other, perhaps more Twitter-inclined, activists don’t think that today’s world still requires a charismatic symbol with an ironclad agenda. They believe that a sustained grassroots model centered on service will be enough to take the country in a new direction.

    “Years down the line, I don’t know exactly what Youth for 3.11 will look like,” admitted Watari. “But if we have tens of thousands of students working, the possibilities are endless.”

    Comment by LeeAnne — April 12, 2011 @ 6:29 am

    • I hope in Japan they’re learning a lesson. But what could possibly teach anyone a lesson in this deranged country, I don’t know. I fear we’re going to have to hit rock bottom.

      Comment by Russ — April 12, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

      • Yes, I’ve felt all along that Americans are so spoiled and insulated that they won’t have a clue about how to handle absolute adversity.

        Perhaps the silence we hear is exactly that. Its ominous.

        But, another interesting step in the right direction here in the NY Post yesterday. A young professor teaches students how to apartment squat; take possession of empty condominiums here.

        Comment by LeeAnne — April 12, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

      • Thanks for the link, LeeAnne. We need more of that.

        Comment by Russ — April 13, 2011 @ 6:03 am

  13. More hope. The people of South Korea have turned en masse to bottled water because of the fear of pollution of water sources in their own country where mass graves of improperly buried cattle in the multimillions during a hoof and mouth epidemic have been found; many without sealing protective plastic.

    Its nature that is rebelling; and nature that we are a part of, and nature that bankers believe they can and should control; for their own profit of course.

    That’s not an exaggeration. As a young stock broker in Wall Street in the 1960s sitting with a couple of hedge fund honchos having a drink, that’s what they said. Their work was to control nature. I was shocked. I didn’t know anything. But I was shocked with disbelief, and have never forgotten that moment.

    Comment by LeeAnne — April 13, 2011 @ 8:39 am

    • That’s all too common an attitude among command economy types.

      But it’s true, nature itself shall increasing counteract and impose a correction upon this rogue species, just as it does in the case of any such species. That homo sapiens is an exception to such natural laws is just typical insanity.

      Comment by Russ — April 13, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

  14. […] face the pitfall of this parochialism. In my posts on building such a movement (here, here, and here, for example), I tried to divide the process into several threads of action, some of which in […]

    Pingback by The Paradox of a Broad Relocalization Movement Consciousness « Volatility — July 15, 2011 @ 1:11 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: