[pp.int.general] Remember remember...

Antonio Garcia ningunotro at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 13 01:23:33 CEST 2013

> Thanks again Matias, you clarified it very well.

> So your original question: is it possible to build a common
> identity in terms of politics?

It is possible. But to start with your last question first... the 
trouble is WE ARE ALL SABOTEURS as long as we only understand the 
problem partially, each from a different starting point of view.

The pirate movement started on the basis of the very liberal views 
of Rick Falkvinge, and where he has been able to keep it together it 
still acts very liberally and has its achilles heel in an extreme 
pragmatism that does not know about ethics. Like when they came up 
with the master strategy of selling themselves to the highest bidder 
when they would be in a position to decide the winning coalition by 
obtaining the maximum of concessions for their core values, damn 
whatever the rest. Even Bruce revolted against his ever calculating 
father in Braveheart. People are not only logic, they also have 
ethics, and political views. As this highest bidder was an unknown, 
left wing people did not vote pirate because he might be righty in 
the end, and right wing people did not for the opposite, so almost 
nobody voted pirate because there is not much people left to vote. 
Needless to say it was the most stupid master strategy ever.

Even today, they are still prisoners of heartless pragmatism. It 
shows in even considering an alliance with the European Democrats, 
and in the fact that behind PPEU and EUPY efforts all but getting 
access to funding is reduced to the bare minimum (but by the many 
naieve individual pirates that tried to take the lead and are now 
being maneuvered as cannon fodder). Nice pat on the shoulder you 
gave me that saturday night in Brussels during the PPI GA of 2013, 
Rick ;) . You truly represented all your liberal friends.

But the core logic is sound... if we want our issues taken care of 
in parliaments, we need to be in those parliaments ourselves. 
Anybody else will be there to cater for their issues, not ours.

What happened? Only the other pragmatic countries (recently known as 
the Five Star Alliance in the NSA scandal, to which the Sweden of 
Carl Bildt is only an appendix as we saw in the Julian Assange saga) 
followed the same approach.

Germany has become an mixed bag full of incongruences that are 
tearing the party apart, starting with a more practical pragmatism 
without the stupid master strategy. The leadership is still almost 
entirely liberal, but the bulk of the big basis is of the naieve 15M 
/ Indignado / Occupy kind of activists whose childish longing for 
mechanical equality and horizontality has taken the liberals by 
surprise and converted the party into an IDIOCRACY where the low 
instincts of the big bulk of the mass needs to be satisfied in order 
to get any kind of decisive internal majorities. The historical 
reference to mass movements being the communist lefties, protest 
movements like 15M / Indignados / Occupy / YoSoy132 / X Spring etc. 
that activate themselves when the rage of the people boils over, but 
have no clue about the real nature of the problem and certainly not 
even a hint of any really practical solution, revert to adopting the 
communist manifesto even if they knew at the beginning they had to 
try to avoid falling in that trap. The German Occupy is the most 
tainted of all, with Interventionistische Linke at the core of 
Blockupy. Imagine what happened when PP-DE leadership gave up 
freedom of speech to stop the brown shitstorm. And when they sacked 
the most representative of the Berlin Occupy movement among them, 
Johannes Ponader. They also shot themselves in both feet, alienating 
liberals and communists alike. No wonder their electoral 
expectations fell from 13 to 2% in no time, with a little help of 
the mainstream press.

The other pirate parties did not even start with a pragmatic and 
capable of organising liberal core, or lost it very soon to the 
majority of bulk Occupy-like membership. Such was the case of the 
Spanish Pirate Party. Specially because the founders had been 
specially paranoid in their crafting of the statutes... the only 
remaining backdoor being the quality control of the newly accepted 
members. It took some time before it became "Occupied" and the 
statutes protected the initial purposes a bit longer... until a 
deadlock was achieved. Hence the long inactivity of PP-ES until 
unblocked in the only way possible... allowing the tricks necessary 
to let the naieve occupiers play. Something they have been doing 
lately to the fullest of their meagre capacity.

So, we really have two internal currents in the Pirate Movement...

... a liberal one pragmatically sabotaging anything communist like 
their livelyhood depended on it.

... a communist one naievely sabotaging anything liberal like their 
livelyhood depended on it.

For some, this will be an intellectually argumented choice, for 
many, it is only through an dull gut feeling.

The results are nevertheless the same for all... chaotentruppe and 
practical inviability of all.

> Is of the same order as: Can we have truely free world trade?

> -Yes if there were clear ethical guidelines/rules with an global
> justice system and a 'law'enforcer.

Even worse, the global justice system and 'law enforcer' must be 
seen as logically and ethically sound by its looks and acts almost 
instinctively, to be able to convince each and everyone on an 
individual basis with a very low entrance level... it must feel 
right at the "instinct" level.

> Simple solution, next to impossible to achieve. Just like the pirate
> parties coming to agree on stating what those ethics precisly should
> be in gouverning ourselves.

Playing with mass dynamics ain't easy, but "doing things right" 
always has the bonus of rallying massively with little wasted effort 
and compounding results. It takes enormous amounts of resources to 
stack evil upon evil, but goodwill shows up to make up for that when 
you start stacking good upon good.

> Please do notice I make a clear difference between pirate core
> issues and ethics, they are not even closely related.

Obviously. Where we have arrived at in the "ethics" department has 
clearly been visible for those that care to observe with the circus 
we all have been able to see in order to close the incident started 
in Prague with the various manipulations endorsed during 2012 and 
the shameless hyjacking of all the Pirate Parties stand for in order 
to falsely avoid the issue in Kazan/Brussels.

> I hope more people will understand better now that NO system in the
> world works poperly when there are too many 'saboteurs' (Byzanthium
> problem).

The Pirate Movement as it "stands" is a walking dead that does not 
know its real fate yet

> Find the saboteurs first.

Ignorance is the biggest saboteur of all, and we all carry parts of it.

> Pirately,

> Anouk

> On 11 July 2013 21:46, seykron <seykron at partidopirata.com.ar> wrote:

>> Hi anouk. I think I wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to say is
>> that current politics doesn't take into account that 2/3 of the
>> world you mention. Labouring class and poor people are always
>> hostages of capitalism and the State. I see how poor people is
>> forced to vote certain parties and assist to political
>> demonstrations to conserve an even poorly subsidy. I saw once how
>> someone said to a poor unemployed guy "shut up, you cannot speak to
>> him about it" when he tried to denounce the pressure. I see how part
>> of this 2/3 of the world is convinced through advertising that it's
>> better to buy things they don't need instead of more basic things
>> they don't have. I see how children go to school to get some food
>> and how they are trained to love the goverment instead of giving
>> them a useful education to get out from their situation. I see how
>> poverty destroys empathy and how it builds distorted relationships.

You are wrong if you think 2/3 of the world are not taken into 
account. How delusional can you become? We are only ONE world, and 
whatever moves on this world is by virtue of its mere existence 
and/or the way it behaves in it part of the problem that has to be 
solved. If not to be part of the solution, to be part of the excess 
that has in one way or the other to be dealt with, because it can 
not be allowed to be a perpetual nuisance (not my stance, but the 
stance exists). Che Guevara wanted to conquer all the rest of the 
world for communism, other need to rid all of the world of communism.

I believe we need to get rid, not of the people themselves, but of 
their respective logics that litterally forces them to try to 
annihilate the other. Both simultaneously. The logic of the Che 
Guevaras only matters because the McCarthies exist, and the logic of 
the McCarthies only because the Che Guevaras do exist. Both the 
dogmatic Cheguevarites and McCarthists are a very logically deluded 
extreme minority of intellectual elites, that could easily be dealt 
with if only the bulk of what is commonly called people had more 
access to some common sense.

>> This last one is the worst point to me: people are suffering because
>> of very troublesome relationships based on issues they shouldn't
>> have to be aware of. Say nothing of financial debts caused by
>> ridiculous unsecured-loans interests (up to 60% here in Argentina).
>> I could continue but I don't (let me know if you're interested in
>> Argentina's situation, I could write a little review).

That, my friend, is part of the wrong and simplistic mindset with 
which it is the bulk of the people itself that forces the lack of 
affordable solution to the problem. The problem is there, and there 
is no such right as a right to not be aware of it. It does affect 
everyone, and nobody has the damn right of getting it solved for 
them without providing all the effort they can towards reaching the 
necessary solution. The more delude themselves into doing nothing 
useful, the more the problem becomes huge and nearly a sisyphical 
task for those that know it absolutely has to be dealt with.

Naieve people doing the opposite of what is really needed have to be 
neutralised for their negative effects, costing an awful lot of 
effort that has to be subtracted from the resources available to 
build positive thrust at once.

>> So, you can dissent with me, but don't tell me I don't see the big
>> picture.

You do not see the big picture. And the way you insist on being 
dissented with and engaged in endless discussions is 
counterproductive and a waste of good peoples time and effort.

>> I'm not against businesses or commerce at all. However, I
>> see how corporations (in every sense of the word, including the
>> goverment) are modeling the society based on unreal values, far away
>> from human values (whatever they'll be). Answering your question,
>> that is what is wrong with capitalism to me. That's because I think
>> being a "pirate" means to think out of the box, far away from the
>> capitalist paradigm. Betiel exposed very clearly some of the goals
>> we're trying to achieve in PPAr.

Being a pirate is about hacking the wrong perception of reality of 
all the involved parties, be it the Cheguevarites or the McCarthists.

Both conscious and unconscious liberals and conservatives abuse the 
extreme rationalization of corporatism, based on the absolute value 
of private property enshrined even in the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, to justify stacking the property of resources up to 
50% in one hand, and both conscious and unconscious communists do 
the same to justify stacking the property of resources up to 100% 
under supposedly people controlled central state authority. How much 
people finally controlled, can be seen tracking where the money went 
when the USSR finally collapsed.

The problem is very simple though: How and why have we humans 
intellectually created this need to stack resources far beyond 
covering basic needs in the first place?

Because that is a creation of nobody else than our human minds. The 
experience of animals make them hoard no longer than to overcome the 
winter period and make it to the next spring.

Only humans care about the absolute negative impact on survival of 
other humans caring about the absolute negative impact on survival 
of other humans even not caring about the absolute impact on 
survival of other human and non human phenomena.

In the same way they care about total annihilation events in very 
abstract and theorethical ways.

We humans are our biggest problem.

And the less smart we behave, the bigger a problem we are to ourselves.

>> Hope it clarified my point.

At least to me, most of all of everybodies points are crystal clear 
since long ago. 

Handling the mass dynamics you all generate together does not become 
an much easier job though, it is still extremely complex.

>> Matías

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20130712/78ec9a04/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list