I found NOTHING, zilch. Couple of selective and closed mailing lists that are not readily viewable. Few attempts that had died, leaving behind forums with no activity, empty quiet streets. Newswires with no constructive and analytical debate. Magazines with beacon attitude.

Are our methods appealing? Is the message attractive and can people relate to it? What/who are our target groups? How are different ideals viewed in the mainstream? How could we better reach people? What do we oppose and why? etc. I can't find it. It's not the first time either I try to find, to locate such discussion entities.

Do people seriously think we are doing a good job of advancing our ideals? I don't know really. And it's hurting, it's thumping its feet on whatever naive hope of love streets I might had had left.

Perhaps I'm just poor at searching, I dunno, because this forum of yours is the most active I could locate. And it seems a local Canadian one... I don't know whether to laugh or cry or throw the monitor out of the window.

If there are better more open, lively, global discussion forums with emphasis on self-criticism for the global alternative globalisation movement, then they at least are not doing a good job of advertising themselves, because they were not listed on half the dozen massive alternative globalisation link pages I took the time to browse thru.

After the rant I could just as well post what I had planned to post, in the case of finding such forum. With bit of alteration to include a more realistic level of cynicism. This may sound bizarre (I'm from Finland btw. hi!) but I just got this urge to let off some steam and frustration. Perhaps to ridicule the vanity of my efforts I also posted it on a football (soccer) forum.

"Inner revolution of man". It is important to understand, how in a democratic society this must happen first before we can hope of a gradual structural change that in comparison to today would seem radical.
The will to change* things comes from within man, from increased understanding, from improved values, from ability of self-criticism, from open mindedness in front of new views, from emotional relation to the social and environmental problems and threats. No abstraction is going to change itself.

*(Of course change can be both positive AND _negative_ from our perception, but the context here I hope explains itself)

There simply cannot exist any main stream love streets (a vision from the '60s) in any foreseeable future. It doesn't matter how fine structural concepts we can come up with if there is no sincere will in political decision making to express the values behind such proposals.
So you move global tax harmony, global aid tax, global environment regulations, debt forgivness, nevermind min & max. salaries and whatever bit to the aside, they are not where to start.
It's values, approach to knowledge and understanding, a long process to gradually try to broaden mans views, question his values, to be able to face our reality and to question some of its central dictums in regard to happiness, meaning of life, altruism, peace etc. and in the context economy, consumption, environment, education and so on.

I'm sure that for some this is comprehensible, for those who share the desperation, the angst and take deep sense of fulfillment in being bothered about something outside of our own every day concretness. You understand we are talking about decades here, and possibly a non-winnable situation, because people as an average are tightly chained to their views, their values and nothing can change that overnight.
Our optimism is proportional to our belief in man's ability to question his views, admit being wrong, adapt his values and broaden his world view, his ability to move further the boarders of his empathy and caring, to include all of the world in it's beauty and the future generations we leave this earth to inhabit. Only from this inner change can come the sincerity to change structures to a greatly different direction*, and if we don't believe in man we have no hope.

*again meaning the green/altruist perspective

It's a basic point, not a novel one and it is at least partly linked to consciousness, free will and our scientific and psychological understanding of the human brain and the human mind.
It is very important for the green and altruist citizen movements to comprehend. It gives a perspective, not only in relation to change and time scales (forget your revolutions), but in relation to our own agendas.
If you agree with the notion of inner change being the catalyst for more beautiful things, then why not start with yourself, free yourself, face, criticize and gradually improve your own values, views and methods.
It's a continuous process to be heard better, to be more effective, to be more appealing to the target groups. There is too much standing still, chained to non working methods and messages inside the green and altruist groups and larger citizen(youth) movements, with little ability to evolve.
It's one place to start.

Education is important as we surely agree, but it's a bit the same as with all the other fine proposals. Our vision of education with freedom, individuality, questioning, tolerance and appreciation of differences, and support for emotionally balanced growth to adulthood, would not have emphasis on economic competition.
First these priorities and values must gradually change, before the structures can reflect them.

Understanding the human mind and human thinking is crucial.

But still it would be nice to have a concrete vision how this change could be hastened. (Well it's not unlikely it's going to happen eventually if you mirror it to mans journey from savages to even this far, let's just hope the earth still supports life then, and no tragic catastrophes of global scale happened in the meanwhile.)
If it just would be possible to approach this problem from a neutral angle, w/o taking any definite pro-partisan ideological stance.

I believe, strongly, that a vision and a message to work on could consist of criticism of the decision making processes. It isn't a novel idea either (all of this is like re-inventing the wheel of course, it's just how to get a (hopefully) well reasoned and logical sum from the parts).
Today in national politics, and in global politics even more so it is very easy to Talk A and do B. It's easy to support values C and D and then consistently violate them in decision making.
Debate of values seems more a populist theatre outside of concrete decision making. If it just, gradually, could be moved closer to where it belongs.
(It's difficult to explain in short space, and I'm not sure if I'm now explaining it clearly.)
Rationally viewed it is crazy. How into detail we can work out things to fire a missile to a target from 1500 miles, or chat to the other side of the globe in 200ms, but we would be incapable of applying concrete research, scientific integrity, debate and rationalisation to our decision making processes that affect the lives of everyone of us, and the future of our planet.

It's crazy that a politician with zero understanding of subject B can act totally against main stream research while claiming to support the opposite values of what are very likely the concrete outcomes of his decision.

The same with the theatre with these Rio Agenda, UN2000, Johannesburg 2002 etc. where everything is promised, and then actions that follow are no way near massive enough in proportion to what would be needed to actually fulfill the promises. But because in decision making there is no process that would point out and expose such contradictions, then the leaders can go on a smile on their faces promising all the good things (again and again), their true agendas hidden, and what are more likely to be the concrete values reflected in the reality of their politics.

If at least they would have to occasionally admit in face of definite arguments and responsibility to argue their decisions, that either they don't care too much about Z or that they must re-consider their stances, we might have a starting point to actually bring idealism back to politics.
No longer so easily could a politician get away with claiming to support hundred different positive sounding values, w/o touching -among others- the fact, that many of these values actually contradict each other, like increased material consumption and environmentalism.

It's a simple message, it isn't green or left, it isn't partisan. It's a simple concept, that decision making should face criticism, rational debate, scientific integrity - test in general, so that our choices could better reflect the values we supposedly support.
This could also help to bring politics back to public discussion.

If this too is utopian even on the time scale of decades, I don't know then anymore what isn't. It's like attempting something small here and there, but always remaining insignificant in comparison to larger contexts.. like wandering on a graveyard of dreams, for a short moment to float in the clouds where the sun is shining and beautiful angels are dancing, for a passing moment to grab to another illusion, only to drop back on earth to walk hand in hand with cynicism and pessimism. Realism?

And you know why this is? In the times past gone by... fights for positive societal change, human rights, freedom, education, health care... people fought it in middle of their own societies, to improve things they could touch like the dirt you can grab from the field and hold in your hand. It was personal, it was concrete, it had links to your own and your familys every day life.
You can't feel environmental dangers 50-100 years away in your every day life, you don't face them concretely. The link is gone. It's not personal. The same with global rich/poor divide. You don't see these people dying of hunger, eating grass, burying their children, suffering from AIDS, you don't live amongst them, you don't feel their pain. They are just words, stories and pictures. And if your soul isn't burning with idealism, as it is with most people, then there is no emotional link to to caring. No reason to care. And People do not care.

What is left is,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zahid Zaman:
No offense, but its too long. Can you summarize your argument?

---

You touch one point among many (I don't think if I can point to any one central theme, other than apathy) about leaders often failing to follow up on their promises. You say you don't know what I'm meaning really, but if you read it, I did explain what I think the problem is. Lack of any open process of criticism, accountability and (scientific) integrity especially in global decision making, that would require the political leaders to argue and explain their decisions, openly and in concrete terms. Not in one-liners and slogans, but in say open debate with credible global warming scientists. Today the leaders are free to care fuck all about the environment, the poor, while preaching their undying love for them with fake tears, and fake promises.

George Bush says he cares about the environment, he feels for the world poor, and many people believe him. But his adminstration won't ever be required to argue in concrete debate with scientists, third world experts, economists etc. how they care about it.
If such criticism, accountability, debates were an integral part of local and global political decision making, the leaders would find it much harder to hide behind the usual 'I care about everything', with no requirement really to take stances, and choose sides.
Idealism has disappeared from politics, intellectualism is all gone.

[ 05 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 05 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Anyone who is politically active in Canada knows about voter apathy. That's old news. Maybe you if you tell us how to fix the sysem so that the average disinfranchised voter gives a damn, you would get many more responses.

[ 05 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

---

I can do that if you solve the mysteries of nano technology.

Glad to have you with us.

I think, to address the topic of your post, that A large part of the problem is media, and T.V. in particular. Our ADD generation of tv heads who have never read a book and wouldn't know what to do with a newspaper are wired for sound bites. They lack the attention span for concrete arguments and besides, they'd rather be playing video games.

The media and establishment have no interest in highly functioning critical human beings. They put tremendous amounts of energy into dumbing us down.

They encourage obsession with the irrelevant (has anyone seen J-Lo today ??? *BREATHLESS*) and in an Orwellian way promote the acceptance of lies as truth etc.

T.V. is to blame not only due to it's message but also due to it's medium. It ecourages, regardless of content, passivity and consumerism.

I'm not doubting TV is helping the dumbing down of people, but it is also reflective of what people want to see.
They create markets where there is interest to make big bucks.
I think Moore said as much when he asked and answered the question, why those who he criticizes pay him good money to criticize them!
$ is the main ideal in corporativism.