<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>> Thanks again Matias, you clarified it very well.<br><br>> So your original question: is it possible to build a common<br>> identity in terms of politics?<br><br>It is possible. But to start with your last question first... the <br>trouble is WE ARE ALL SABOTEURS as long as we only understand the <br>problem partially, each from a different starting point of view.<br><br>The pirate movement started on the basis of the very liberal views <br>of Rick Falkvinge, and where he has been able to keep it together it <br>still acts very liberally and has its achilles heel in an extreme <br>pragmatism that does not know about ethics. Like when they came up <br>with the master strategy of selling themselves to the highest bidder <br>when they would be in a position to decide the winning coalition by <br>obtaining the maximum of concessions for their core values, damn <br>whatever the rest. Even Bruce revolted against his ever calculating <br>father in Braveheart. People are not only logic, they also have <br>ethics, and political views. As this highest bidder was an unknown, <br>left wing people did not vote pirate because he might be righty in <br>the end, and right wing people did not for the opposite, so almost <br>nobody voted pirate because there is not much people left to vote. <br>Needless to say it was the most stupid master strategy ever.<br><br>Even today, they are still prisoners of heartless pragmatism. It <br>shows in even considering an alliance with the European Democrats, <br>and in the fact that behind PPEU and EUPY efforts all but getting <br>access to funding is reduced to the bare minimum (but by the many <br>naieve individual pirates that tried to take the lead and are now <br>being maneuvered as cannon fodder). Nice pat on the shoulder you <br>gave me that saturday night in Brussels during the PPI GA of 2013, <br>Rick ;) . You truly represented all your liberal friends.<br><br>But the core logic is sound... if we want our issues taken care of <br>in parliaments, we need to be in those parliaments ourselves. <br>Anybody else will be there to cater for their issues, not ours.<br><br>What happened? Only the other pragmatic countries (recently known as <br>the Five Star Alliance in the NSA scandal, to which the Sweden of <br>Carl Bildt is only an appendix as we saw in the Julian Assange saga) <br>followed the same approach.<br><br>Germany has become an mixed bag full of incongruences that are <br>tearing the party apart, starting with a more practical pragmatism <br>without the stupid master strategy. The leadership is still almost <br>entirely liberal, but the bulk of the big basis is of the naieve 15M <br>/ Indignado / Occupy kind of activists whose childish longing for <br>mechanical equality and horizontality has taken the liberals by <br>surprise and converted the party into an IDIOCRACY where the low <br>instincts of the big bulk of the mass needs to be satisfied in order <br>to get any kind of decisive internal majorities. The historical <br>reference to mass movements being the communist lefties, protest <br>movements like 15M / Indignados / Occupy / YoSoy132 / X Spring etc. <br>that activate themselves when the rage of the people boils over, but <br>have no clue about the real nature of the problem and certainly not <br>even a hint of any really practical solution, revert to adopting the <br>communist manifesto even if they knew at the beginning they had to <br>try to avoid falling in that trap. The German Occupy is the most <br>tainted of all, with Interventionistische Linke at the core of <br>Blockupy. Imagine what happened when PP-DE leadership gave up <br>freedom of speech to stop the brown shitstorm. And when they sacked <br>the most representative of the Berlin Occupy movement among them, <br>Johannes Ponader. They also shot themselves in both feet, alienating <br>liberals and communists alike. No wonder their electoral <br>expectations fell from 13 to 2% in no time, with a little help of <br>the mainstream press.<br><br>The other pirate parties did not even start with a pragmatic and <br>capable of organising liberal core, or lost it very soon to the <br>majority of bulk Occupy-like membership. Such was the case of the <br>Spanish Pirate Party. Specially because the founders had been <br>specially paranoid in their crafting of the statutes... the only <br>remaining backdoor being the quality control of the newly accepted <br>members. It took some time before it became "Occupied" and the <br>statutes protected the initial purposes a bit longer... until a <br>deadlock was achieved. Hence the long inactivity of PP-ES until <br>unblocked in the only way possible... allowing the tricks necessary <br>to let the naieve occupiers play. Something they have been doing <br>lately to the fullest of their meagre capacity.<br><br>So, we really have two internal currents in the Pirate Movement...<br><br>... a liberal one pragmatically sabotaging anything communist like <br>their livelyhood depended on it.<br><br>... a communist one naievely sabotaging anything liberal like their <br>livelyhood depended on it.<br><br>For some, this will be an intellectually argumented choice, for <br>many, it is only through an dull gut feeling.<br><br>The results are nevertheless the same for all... chaotentruppe and <br>practical inviability of all.<br><br><br>> Is of the same order as: Can we have truely free world trade?<br><br>> -Yes if there were clear ethical guidelines/rules with an global<br>> justice system and a 'law'enforcer.<br><br>Even worse, the global justice system and 'law enforcer' must be <br>seen as logically and ethically sound by its looks and acts almost <br>instinctively, to be able to convince each and everyone on an <br>individual basis with a very low entrance level... it must feel <br>right at the "instinct" level.<br><br><br>> Simple solution, next to impossible to achieve. Just like the pirate<br>> parties coming to agree on stating what those ethics precisly should<br>> be in gouverning ourselves.<br><br>Playing with mass dynamics ain't easy, but "doing things right" <br>always has the bonus of rallying massively with little wasted effort <br>and compounding results. It takes enormous amounts of resources to <br>stack evil upon evil, but goodwill shows up to make up for that when <br>you start stacking good upon good.<br><br><br>> Please do notice I make a clear difference between pirate core<br>> issues and ethics, they are not even closely related.<br><br>Obviously. Where we have arrived at in the "ethics" department has <br>clearly been visible for those that care to observe with the circus <br>we all have been able to see in order to close the incident started <br>in Prague with the various manipulations endorsed during 2012 and <br>the shameless hyjacking of all the Pirate Parties stand for in order <br>to falsely avoid the issue in Kazan/Brussels.<br><br><br>> I hope more people will understand better now that NO system in the<br>> world works poperly when there are too many 'saboteurs' (Byzanthium<br>> problem).<br><br>The Pirate Movement as it "stands" is a walking dead that does not <br>know its real fate yet<br><br><br>> Find the saboteurs first.<br><br>Ignorance is the biggest saboteur of all, and we all carry parts of it.<br><br><br>> Pirately,<br><br>> Anouk<br><br><br>> On 11 July 2013 21:46, seykron <seykron@partidopirata.com.ar> wrote:<br><br>>> Hi anouk. I think I wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to say is<br>>> that current politics doesn't take into account that 2/3 of the<br>>> world you mention. Labouring class and poor people are always<br>>> hostages of capitalism and the State. I see how poor people is<br>>> forced to vote certain parties and assist to political<br>>> demonstrations to conserve an even poorly subsidy. I saw once how<br>>> someone said to a poor unemployed guy "shut up, you cannot speak to<br>>> him about it" when he tried to denounce the pressure. I see how part<br>>> of this 2/3 of the world is convinced through advertising that it's<br>>> better to buy things they don't need instead of more basic things<br>>> they don't have. I see how children go to school to get some food<br>>> and how they are trained to love the goverment instead of giving<br>>> them a useful education to get out from their situation. I see how<br>>> poverty destroys empathy and how it builds distorted relationships.<br><br>You are wrong if you think 2/3 of the world are not taken into <br>account. How delusional can you become? We are only ONE world, and <br>whatever moves on this world is by virtue of its mere existence <br>and/or the way it behaves in it part of the problem that has to be <br>solved. If not to be part of the solution, to be part of the excess <br>that has in one way or the other to be dealt with, because it can <br>not be allowed to be a perpetual nuisance (not my stance, but the <br>stance exists). Che Guevara wanted to conquer all the rest of the <br>world for communism, other need to rid all of the world of communism.<br><br>I believe we need to get rid, not of the people themselves, but of <br>their respective logics that litterally forces them to try to <br>annihilate the other. Both simultaneously. The logic of the Che <br>Guevaras only matters because the McCarthies exist, and the logic of <br>the McCarthies only because the Che Guevaras do exist. Both the <br>dogmatic Cheguevarites and McCarthists are a very logically deluded <br>extreme minority of intellectual elites, that could easily be dealt <br>with if only the bulk of what is commonly called people had more <br>access to some common sense.<br><br>>> This last one is the worst point to me: people are suffering because<br>>> of very troublesome relationships based on issues they shouldn't<br>>> have to be aware of. Say nothing of financial debts caused by<br>>> ridiculous unsecured-loans interests (up to 60% here in Argentina).<br>>> I could continue but I don't (let me know if you're interested in<br>>> Argentina's situation, I could write a little review).<br><br>That, my friend, is part of the wrong and simplistic mindset with <br>which it is the bulk of the people itself that forces the lack of <br>affordable solution to the problem. The problem is there, and there <br>is no such right as a right to not be aware of it. It does affect <br>everyone, and nobody has the damn right of getting it solved for <br>them without providing all the effort they can towards reaching the <br>necessary solution. The more delude themselves into doing nothing <br>useful, the more the problem becomes huge and nearly a sisyphical <br>task for those that know it absolutely has to be dealt with.<br><br>Naieve people doing the opposite of what is really needed have to be <br>neutralised for their negative effects, costing an awful lot of <br>effort that has to be subtracted from the resources available to <br>build positive thrust at once.<br><br><br>>> So, you can dissent with me, but don't tell me I don't see the big<br>>> picture.<br><br>You do not see the big picture. And the way you insist on being <br>dissented with and engaged in endless discussions is <br>counterproductive and a waste of good peoples time and effort.<br><br><br>>> I'm not against businesses or commerce at all. However, I<br>>> see how corporations (in every sense of the word, including the<br>>> goverment) are modeling the society based on unreal values, far away<br>>> from human values (whatever they'll be). Answering your question,<br>>> that is what is wrong with capitalism to me. That's because I think<br>>> being a "pirate" means to think out of the box, far away from the<br>>> capitalist paradigm. Betiel exposed very clearly some of the goals<br>>> we're trying to achieve in PPAr.<br><br>Being a pirate is about hacking the wrong perception of reality of <br>all the involved parties, be it the Cheguevarites or the McCarthists.<br><br>Both conscious and unconscious liberals and conservatives abuse the <br>extreme rationalization of corporatism, based on the absolute value <br>of private property enshrined even in the Universal Declaration of <br>Human Rights, to justify stacking the property of resources up to <br>50% in one hand, and both conscious and unconscious communists do <br>the same to justify stacking the property of resources up to 100% <br>under supposedly people controlled central state authority. How much <br>people finally controlled, can be seen tracking where the money went <br>when the USSR finally collapsed.<br><br>The problem is very simple though: How and why have we humans <br>intellectually created this need to stack resources far beyond <br>covering basic needs in the first place?<br><br>Because that is a creation of nobody else than our human minds. The <br>experience of animals make them hoard no longer than to overcome the <br>winter period and make it to the next spring.<br><br>Only humans care about the absolute negative impact on survival of <br>other humans caring about the absolute negative impact on survival <br>of other humans even not caring about the absolute impact on <br>survival of other human and non human phenomena.<br><br>In the same way they care about total annihilation events in very <br>abstract and theorethical ways.<br><br>We humans are our biggest problem.<br><br>And the less smart we behave, the bigger a problem we are to ourselves.<br><br>>> <br>>> Hope it clarified my point.<br>>><br><br>At least to me, most of all of everybodies points are crystal clear <br>since long ago. <br><br>Handling the mass dynamics you all generate together does not become <br>an much easier job though, it is still extremely complex.<br><br><br>>> Matías<br><br><br>Antonio.<br> </div></body>
</html>