This dialogue came as an anonymous, yet deeper-than-usual message from a person who reflects the usual cynical and even arrogant assumptions so prevalent in reformist and liberal/conservative/colonized politics today, in my experience. (Perhaps you are one?) We touch on various topics including nuances of religion, "broad net" approaches of early movements, secret societies, trolls, sustained challenge, thinking persons, and so on.


the dialogue:
I'm calling this person a "political elite" of sorts because of their attitude, which i think is widely shared by vanguardists and others wanting to lead you naive (?) simpletons (?) towards their claimed "right action" (as though they have somehow found a More Holier Than Thou Truth and we'd all BETTER subordinate to such, or be damned, heh!).

Anything those of you with attention spans longer than what your "leaders" tell you you have (and thus allow yourselves to read more than the maximum you "are capable of") are welcome to speak your best!



Got a reply to this via the message pipeline (at www.tribe.net), and thought i'd respond here. i'll keep the messager anonymous until i get her/his permission to use it...

Tue, November 6, 2007 - 12:13 PM
Subject Re: re: your anti-psych sharing
Message
cosmic-ly craZy wrote:

> The trick is to avoid the pit-falls of how [our]
> stories become armored and enfortressed, and
> thus reflecting more and more levels of tyranny.
> Because i see that religions (like perhaps every
> other institution subordinated to the State or
> Corporate belief system and method) are not
> always the ideas they claim territory with.
> There have been excellences in christian
> her/history, and could be many more.
>
> All we have to do is be able to "tease
> out" the lost from the excelling. And hold
> that space so that others can see as well, and
> then we don't get our feet stomped and our
> communities strung up.
-----
} respondent (r) said:
yes, that was the premise of my tribe interparadigm eclectics [at tribe.net]... which is pretty failed at this point...
--
Why do you say "failed"? Maybe you need to just stick with it? Or perhaps it's too jargon-filled?

} i mostly have quit tribe [dot net], the majority of people here are trolls, nothing really came of my year long stint
here...
-----
Ah, well i find that different tribes are different in terms of that truth. Tho i definitely don't stick with only one domain, this is a good one to use in various ways for various reasons, i find.

>
> And, yes, i really think this is a big key to
> dealing with such things; not to demonize them
> in return, but to promote evolutionary ways of
> relating!
-----
r} Yes, but whith christianity in particular, clarity is realizing that the religion has become merely a tool
for mass mind control.
----
Sure, of course. But they're not the only institution. i think *all* institutions (formal like, say the highly political Allopathic medical school, and informal, like the Nuclearized family) could use the same kind of consciousness. "Connect the dots" i always say.

>
> Let's face it, christianity, in history (and
> herstory) has been one amongst *possibly MANY
> controls* used by feudal-oriented governments
> and their "nobles" (to be fair,
> mystified descendants of claimed legendary
> divinities). And that even the "
> nobles" were not allowed to "
> deviate" from strict ideas about how to
> think of the masses, how to think of keeping us
> under their control, or how to behave as human
> beings.
>
> In this context i'd rather look into the HEART
> of a system which utilizes ideas in alienatingly
> warlike ways, than focus on yet another symptom.
-----
r} I like to look at it from a historic perspective, and to think of it in terms of its decay
cycle within the first two hundred years after yeshua was murdered. It started golden but rotted at nearly the same rate as its founders corpse. If i had a time machine and could go back and keep him alive, i would do so, his ideas were revolutionary; thats why he was killed.
-----
Yes, and i see this same undercurrent or pattern happening in a SYSTEMATIC way for many many other institutions as well. They ALL seem to start out in what is called the "broad net" approach, and then systematically reduce themselves into very hostile and aggressive states of being, where the interests of the "small man" is cast aside for the interests of large constituencies and corporate or political interests coming from the status quo.

And this is COMPLETELY NORMAL for ANY school of thought which believes in assimilation --basically STRENGTHENING the status quo's severe alienation situation. Such a pattern is a very cynical method, actually, and is articulated to various degrees by those who are viewed as "the leading intellectuals" of status-quo mind-set. You read the institutional analysis of curiously despised folks like Noam Chomsky --whom consistently works overtime quoting and exposing the tricks of what are called *social and cultural managers* (i.e. in the New York Times, and from other 'elites')-- and you start to see the big picture in all of this a lot more clearly.

i'd recommend folks to check out one of the websites with his analysis, say "chomsky.info". He's quoting "the guru of the Kennedy intellectuals" and "the dean of public relations" and the early manifestors of those who seek to *engineer opinion* and *manufacture consent*. Very very insightful!

And when you realize that most of the rest of the "community" of "more capable men" completely subordinate their intelligence to these "gurus" and "deans" and such, you begin to see a very military or "chain-of-command" attitude. Once you understand this bigger, meta picture, of "elites" going about their daily routines, you see that everyone "below" the "top men" are "just following orders"; they are, after all, the implementers of policy mandates, and they don't think things through because they have a career to think about and a family to feed (or something along those lines). So the largest percentage of "the specialized class" themselves, where they manifest as schools of thought or movements for "change" and "reform", where they are seeking "a seat at the table" of what is supposed to be "power" (really very much like the Wizard of Oz!), they're part and parcel of a very military-like, top-down mentality which REALLY DOES NOT change.

And we masses of people are trained to think of these wizards of Oz as worthy of our trust! But we're having *wool pulled over our eyes*, and it's not just from this era, or this century (another game played at our expense); this is NORMAL BEHAVIOR for colonized society! These patterns have existed since WE were ALL first colonized forcefully (reduced from our diverse humanity as, say, the tribes of Europe, and turned into "citizens" and all the other bullshit that many who don't vote intuit and thus opt out of).

>
> Or how about the idea that "our
> society" (controlled by European historical
> intensities) is *not* really "based
> on" christian "morality and
> ethics"; but is instead based on a
> severely, even intensely alienated mind-set
> passed down from generation to generation by
> various angles on force; and came, originally,
> from intense fears now largely forgotten.
>
> And that christianity, and other religions
> caught up in the consequences of that fear are
> symptoms of this bigger picture situation.
-----
r} yes, pretty much true, tho i could put names on that force; ethnocentrism and greed,
assorted secret societies...the masons...
----
Ah, i'm starting to see that a lot of these "secret societies" (the fact that we even know about them is a very curious insight, btw) are serving as a kind of scapegoat for the stronger secret societies. They may've been part of the action earlier, but perhaps their constituencies waned and they became weak enough to scapegoat. This is normal in politics, so why not amongst "elites" themselves?

So we're being encouraged to vent our rage at these masons; but who are they *really*? And were they REALLY so "secret"? After all, i've noted that Masonic Lodges don't keep it a secret that they are in various cities.

And what were they in their heyday? Were they *possibly* despised "power spots" (i.e. autonomous situations where, say, early labor movements could hold meetings when *no one* else allowed?)? Where they even beneficial in their approach sometimes?

Btw, i see the attack made at churches and religion, and there's certainly much truth and value in attacking them, but what is the bigger picture of politics in this? Maybe the churches, for all of their warfare against the masses (notably *enforced* via the mandate of obedient subordination to basic state "interests", i.e. keeping the masses divided amongst themselves, thus deflecting any concerted challenge to the big picture of our shared situations), are under a more concerted attack now, because they've held onto certain values; such as the value of sanctuary, or the value of giving space to mass meetings, where few other places exist, without very political controls coming into effect!

>
> Tho, yes, I do agree that institutionalized,
> state-subordinated (or tyranny-subordinated)
> religions, including christianity, have become
> tyrannical in their own ways, i *also* see that
> a fundamentalist bent, a religionized way of
> judging and perpetuating alienation PERMEATES
> Eurocentric society (and its colonized) THROUGH-
> OUT, not merely in religion.
>
> Thomas Szasz has shown such parallels in the
> social sciences like psychiatry, for example
> (see, i.e. _The Theology of Medicine_ ), and we
> cannot help but to see parallels in allopathic
> medical politics as well, as when we read Ken
> Ausabel's book on the politics of cancer cures
> and one cure that works for portions of the
> cancer plague. Further, reading Paul
> Feyerabend's writings, including _Against
> Method_ shine light on "hard" science
> as well (and thus few today have even heard of
> it, despite their "good education").
>
> i question the idea that christianity's
> "whole point" is to keep people in mental
> cages. This is the stuff of ALL "NORMAL" governing systems,
> and while (like i said above) christianity has
> and continues to be *one example* of tyranny of
> this sort, the CONTEXT is due to the reality
> that they want their beliefs to survive and are
> willing to give up portions of their substance
> in order to continue to exist as a
> "reputable" religion.

(...)
> No, i'd rather go for the deeper truths, and
> shine light on those so caught up in the agony
> of severe forms of alienation that they
> sequester themselves away from we "stupid
> masses" and continue designing hells on Earth
> (as a direct reflection of the hells they
> suffer!).
-----
r} Sure, i'd like to focus on the positive, but most people seem to need to be shook out of their
complacent acceptance of what is. Theres no way to get most "christians" to even think about the
realitiy of the essenes or gnostics until you rip away their disgusting paradigm.
------
i think your assessment of what "most people need" in order to *wake up* is the "normal" (and dichotomy-stuck) attitude; but i don't think it's accurate, unless we approach it in a complementing way. That is, if we approach folks with the desire to form truly meaningful community, then we can open ourselves up to the truth that people do things for more reasons than meets the eye. And i have to agree with Chomsky about people's 'Cartesian common sense'; it's just that people don't generally have a *frame of reference* for their dissent, or have been so poisoned by the reality of 'society's' "norms" that they have learned early to "shut up". We're not encouraged to articulate, and so we masses have a tendency to appear to be "stupid" when in reality we've been systematically "stupidized"; faced with a society which WILL NOT LISTEN to us as human beings, WILL NOT EMPATHIZE with us as human beings (more than the severely reduced categories of who we're "supposed to" be), most people very intelligently opt out, and flow towards those situations where there is least resistance.

You all getting what i'm saying?

>
> Do tell me if you think i'm missing crucial
> truths here!
>
> Ah, and then you challenge anarchism as well! A-
> ha! GooD! And New Age! And the etcetera!
>
> Okay, but again, i think it's CRUCIALLY
> important to see in which context they have
> worked their histories.
----
r} Yes, all things have deeper contexts. Its amazing and sad to me that it took this long for a really decent
answer to that original message. I more or less quit tribe because there wasn't anything like a real
response. Funny how months later, i finally get this jewel back from somebody.
-----
Okay, so that's reality. We plug away, and sometimes jewels come along. Myself, i do this as a spiritual path. If a *critical mass* doesn't "get it" this time around, then i did my best. And i build my consciousness. And perhaps my repetition will carry on to my next life or situation after i pass on from this life. Who knows? But i find this meaningful and powerful, and worth putting time into.

> And i think it is also crucially vital to look
> at how state-subordinated, institutionalized
> human beings have weilded these ideas; and that
> their form is not itself fit for tossing away in
> whole!
>
> And i wonder if you want to do this.
-----
r} Sure, i have done that. My process is to try to wake people up tho, not ponder imponderables forever in
the mists.
-----
Ah, another "typical" liberal (or conservative?) response, perhaps. Me, i want to "wake people up" to the bigger picture as well, so i show them tools they may want to pick up and utilize in their own lives and inclinations. i want to demystify the big pictures so that *they* lead in their desires, not me! i want nothing to do with being "a leader" (but of course, the frame of reference we well-trained "politicals" take up --without adequate thought!-- is that there is "only" one paradigm that is "realistic"; this one that promotes the "leader/follower" farce!).

What to you is "imponderable" is to me (and not a few others) quite understandable, once one escapes from the corrall of single issue thinking!


>
> I think the situation is more something we can
> readily respond to without avoiding and running.
> And i think it's a matter of how Noam Chomsky
> (despised and suppressed by the staus-quo)
> analyzes things:
>
> That "well educated" people whom have
> INTERNALIZED the values of the dominating
> paradigm, and whom have had their opinions
> ENGINEERED, have "taken over"
> (especially in the slickest and most well-funded
> publications and situations). That is, they've
> come directly from the "Wizards of
> Is/Oz" with their "latest
> studies" (etc.) in a fevered,
> fundamentalist religious ferver; and what they
> don't see is that their excellent desires to
> help are being tooled in the same way that naive
> youth are fooled to become soldiers (when they
> have that choice at all).
------
r} yes, i think that the thing i wrote was very polarized to elicit a response. Like a pulse check, the proper
response from a thinking person is acknowledgement of the core truth but stepping back towards
softness.
It almost makes me think i should bother to come back to tribe and see if i can make it work. Almost.
--------

Perhaps people are TIRED of being hyped-up? Perhaps they're sick to death of the, i think, obsolete mobilization techniques of reform movements (whom have hardly changed or evolved their methods since the 1800s, after all!). Perhaps you just needed a rest. Perhaps many things! (At least you're not getting tooled by the "activist" role game! i mean, you CHOSE FOR YOURSELF when to take a hiatus! Good for you!)

As for where people are at, i'm seeing the "trolls" acting out their intuitive warrior ways, except that they have long invalidated their power, and thus the quality of their intelligence has suffered. If we approach them as if they are us at a time when we ourselves were once so off-balance, we can move beyond the first hurdle which poisons and confines so many others (whom then alienate themselves further into all these ghettos, i.e. academic "intellectual" ghettos).

> And this authoritarian mind-set, cammo'd with
> the usual High Horse Truth orders (where ALL had
> better subordinate, or be labeled "
> inappropriate" or worse), has permeated the
> WHOLE SOCIETY, not merely relatively small
> aspects of it, like the New Age movement, et al.
-----
r} sure, the virus infects all paradigms. That doesn't make the core paradigms bad, but it does make them ill.
----
i'd say "ill" in the sense of dis ease. Or "ill" in the sense of alienation. Many of these, if not all of these paradigms are, after all, coming from the Dark Ages, at least in seed. Is it not so? So from their foundation they are off-balance; they are built upon foundations that are not "foolproof". They are built on very alienated assumptions.

>
> But this is getting into the stuff of Rollback
> (again, look up Chomsky; say chomsky.info ).
> Where organized international elites put
> millions, even billions of dollars into the idea
> of rolling back idealists from our desires for
> faster change and back to "our proper
> places" as subordinates "knowing our
> places". Chomsky discusses some of these
> organizations in one of his best speeches: "
> Media Control, The Spectacular Achievements of
> Propaganda"
>
> And what about the role of the public relations
> (PR) industry? Utilized by the organizations of
> these folks whose opinions and views have been
> engineered to "fit in" with the meta
> interests of industry and its severely alienated
> owners (i.e. the war industry, as u.s.m.c.
> brigadier general Smedley Butler exposed).
-----
r} I think my point is about the media, and its corruption, and its usurpation of assorted paradigms
for mind control purposes.
-----
Okay.

> As for whether paths laid out by New Age "
> authorities" are forever poisoned by these
> truths, i disagree. But i'm of the skool where
> one can learn from *any* way if they truly have
> their hearts open and are listening. The trick,
> again, is how deep do we delve, and do we give
> ourselves permission?
-----
r} I agree.
---
>
> So, yeah, you've got a real interesting
> trajectory going on here. i just think you could
> go deeper. The brainwave idea will interest a
> few, and turn away others (especially those who
> know of mkultra games). Then again, everything
> ain't for everyone, and we're all on different
> paths of power.
------
r} Yes, MKultra can turn off a lot of people to some important things...just because brainwave technologies
were so abused tho is again no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
---
My own intuition on this is to distrust such formal, reductionist ways of approach. Where people are supposedly aloof from the diverse consequences of this severely alienated, war-oriented, competition society. i can imagine a society where folks like yourself are free to explore such possibilities, tho.


r} I abandoned tribe.net as a failure effort to try to start a wake up process socially. I am working on upping my ante and improving my game; i went back inward to my own self where i am currently working dilligently. If your response had come a few months earlier, and on a public forum, it might have kept me
here.
--------------
Oh well. Have you found any other forums that speak to your desires more? (i'd like to hear of such)

> Finally, i'd watch the urge to reduce and
> simplify in terms of labels and what "most
> people" are. How do you know this?
---
r} observations and analysis.
----
Fair enough. Tho i'd, again, counsel you to read Chomsky's demystifications of such attitudes, including his analysis of people like Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, Reinhold Niebuhr and so on. i think you'll be surprised by what you read. You might start with Chomsky's "Media Control" speech, now in small booklet form. Portions of it are also available on znet's archive, tho sadly the key (and most easily accessable portions) are censored there, due to what one editor there claims is not a conspiracy to deprive the public of such consciousness.

>What if
> you are doing as Theodore Roszak showed, in his
> book on the counterculture, where the "well
> educated" are projecting their alienated
> beliefs on other cultural truths? And what if
> you are missing the gift of R.D. Laing where he
> trusted in the idea of *letting* people *go
> through* their situations.
-----
r} Letting people go through their situations is decaying our civilization into fascism.
---
In a formal sense, i agree. That is, when people are directly subordinated to ideologically-challenged ways of seeing and relating with each other. Informally, tho, i lean towards this other idea i'm thinking of. Especially when their ignorance is not directly threatening others. So i'm thinking more along lines of dialogue rather than lines of active actions, and engaging people with radicalized dialogue via various creative techniques we come up with.

Laing, i think, got tooled by his profession; so he was confined by, for instance, "the professional paradigm" and got bogged down in his "role"; whereas, i see indigenous traditions of interacting with people as having openings which are much more liberating for *both* parties --militantly ignorant and militantly liberation-oriented.

i'm still putting this all together in a more coherent way, and that's why i want to keep dialogues like ours *open to the public*, in case anyone has some ideas to add to the brew, so to speak! One never knows!


r} I know the future along those paths; i have seen the potential futures of many timelines.
I am awoken to a responsibility to attempt to select a different and better future than
the destruction of the human race, etc.
-----
i like that as well; and i think the reverberations of this may affect other realities as well even tho i don't know for sure (i.e. beyond humanity). Btw, have you read Ken Carey's _Return of the Bird Tribes_? The portion where he discusses ENHANCING the Earth and its species might interest you!


> Then, the "bickering" and such might
> be channeled in more meaningful directions, say
> a Wow Pow Wow. But, of course, perhaps a little
> too INTENSE at first for most intellectually
> inclined (and thus your disinclination to truly
> listen to them?)...and a bit "too"
> wild.
------
r} I listen. Generally, they don't.
----
This may be true, tho i'm learning to see that people listen in various frequencies; and we trained to see only in *intellectually-centric* ways are missing a huge reality in our seemingly arrogant orientation to such assumptions. Provocative enough for you?

> Whattya thinc?
----

r} your response shows you to be a living, breathing, thinking human being with a conscience, with some
clarity on the problems but some well needed clarity also in terms of moderation.
On the other hand, i think it would take a very long time to get you to the place of right action, from what
you have posted so far your version of moderation is unfortunately a bit slow.
---
This may be where we go in different directions. i really have no interest in "right action" as defined by others (where i'm to subordinate automatically to their More Right hierarchy!). Oh well.

r} This is by far the best response i ever got from that fishing expedition, and at the same time, it shows me
the thickness of the matrix, and displays again for me the complexities of the problem of trying to shake
people up or wake them from their slumber.

Thanks for taking the time to answer...
too bad i have moved on.

peace and light to you
r