Removing some of the strongest emotional eruptions from Andrews email, I think we will find a number of good points, I, in other words, basically agree with Andrews points, I have however reached a different conclusion.<br>
<br>It must be said that I have found the direction PPI has moved in the last years unfortunate for several reasons, partly because I simply do not understand the need to build a hierarchical structure up in an attempt to combat older and much stronger hierarchies. One of our greatest strengths, a force that no hierarchy can stand against, is neural networking in lack of a beter term, ie. the ability to get work done with out being punished into submission. Do we really believe that we gain people's respect and recognition, by dressing and behaving like the old parties? - Hopefully not.<br>
Last but not least, I found the timing of the creation of a new PPI quite miserable, ALL forces should have been used to help various parties locally in their election campaigns.<br><br>I merely say this so you know a bit of the background for the following views.<br>
<br>Actually I do not want to interfere in the debate on the management and structure of PPI, in turn, I would just like to note that we have not given the Board the best working condition, in the sense that the organization most of all seems like a fragile compromise between different not always definable directions, even if we send out official letters every day, it would not change the fact (in my opinion) that PPI is placed between two chairs leaving the board with few options to appear strong or what ever.<br>
<br>I would suggest three things we could to implement with relative ease, without having to stir up too much personal pettiness and whatever else is hiding in the closet:<br><br>1. The PPI continues its present course, preferably in the current constellation as they should have the chance to finish what they have started.<br>
<br>Arguments are among others that we ourselves have created the basis for an organization with no real power and influence, and therefore we can not complain about the lack of just that. Secondly, I believe that we have wasted far too much time already on"bureaucratic nonsense", let the current core build a foundation so that we get something we can actually relate to and which we can jointly improve later on, rather than drowning in abstract discussions.<br>
<br>This does not resolve many of the problems Andrew points out in his mail, which leads me to point two:<br><br>2. That we create a non-parliamentary activist group.<br><br>Many people miss taking part in something greater than themselves, but often lack the time, skills and perhaps experience, and I do not think we have been good enough to enable/empower people, if one can say it that way.<br>
However, we see a strong influx of groups like Anonymous (which I strongly support), The Zeitgeist Movement and other similar groups that seem to be much better at drawing in new activist, to maintain those they have and to educate those who seek more than to glue the doors to banks or what ever.<br>
<br>Well, I am schooled in a red tradition where one would look with contempt at people who stand for election, but the hope, the will and the joy I've met around taking part in various actions around the net in the last week, reminds me of good old times gone hehe.<br>
<br>Non-parliamentary groups have many benefits, they can offer people simple options and opportunities to participate in events they support, without having to "buy a whole package", many activists eventually become more and more political / philosophical interested and in time often seep quietly into groups like pirate party where they become politicians or take up other positions,<br>
Non-parliamentary groups will also open up for cooperation with far more colorful groups, across both political and national borders.<br><br>We could, in other words, appear in many more places under many different flags, as vanguard on the barricades, we could start right now by throwing everything we have got behind the defense of TPB, in fact that particular case is the perfect starting point.<br>
<br>Last but not least, a group such as I just mentioned, could with a philosophy inspired by Gandhi<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha</a><br>help to ensure a lot of exciting events do not become violent and retarded.<br>
<br>Last point I promise:)<br><br>3. That we focus more of our work (PPI) on scientific and historical research, and creative solutions that can provide for the creation of an entirely new policy. Perhaps there is too much time spend translating and relating to all the new bills constantly pouring out of various institutions, leaving us in a constant defensive, which obviously makes it even more difficult to put a political agenda. I could also be, that we need more people to take part in such groups, hence the idea of creating activist groups.<br>
<br>I believe such groups as the one that fought ACTA was/is super cool, but it needs to be backed up by new visions and ideas for how to organize a "modern" society.<br><br>Well, Im just chatting away really without too much thought. take it as a series of aphorisms from a random personage, ie. with a grain of salt:)<br>
<br>Respectfully yours<br><br>Erik Ernst<br>