[pp.int.general] Remember remember...
betielix at gmail.com
Sat Jul 13 02:11:38 CEST 2013
2013/7/12 Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
> > 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.
One way to avoid saboteurs could be to all of us to learn and discuss the
issues until a natural consensus is obtained.
It the saboteurs wins... well at least will be damned quite convinced that
what we did was the right thing to do.
regarding right and left wings .. I believe the issue is we have to forget
that old schools and find whatever is good in one of them or in both of
them. Sometimes is quite hard.
There are people that if hears something is from the right point of view(or
the left in other instances) they promptly disagree without even listening
the other point of view. That's the reason we need to forget about right
and left and hear the ideas as if they were new ones, or different ones,
and agree or disagree with one idea at the time and throw away the left and
right way of thinking. Keep the best, no matter what. What is the best,
should be discussed till we reach some kind of concensus. That is my idea.
You are concern about people from right not voting us if we are left and
We must teach people to forget about one wing or the other and concentrate
on what is best for us all. I believe that's the answer. Perhaps is
something some people too involved in one or another way of thinking will
be hard to convince, but I believe people can understand that and stop
taking politics as a Real Madrid vs Barcelona match.
I take this important phrase from the bottom of what you say:
"Ignorance is the biggest saboteur of all, and we all carry
parts of it."
Exactly. That's our biggest enemy. So we need to learn from each other and
try to keep ignorance to a minimun. At least inside our own local parties.
> 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
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general