The following comes from a comment I made on an Australian IMC comment area (under the story about propaganda). Perhaps it's time we began to have a discussion about situations when they become so hysterical on both sides that po'lice (soldiers called cops) resort to shooting live bullets, and leftists resort to fanning the flames of hate of an element of society which appears to more about distraction from our alleged goals than anything else.

If you haven't done this yet, first you need some background on the way policy makers think, and why they do what they do. The best resource on this that I know of is Noam Chomsky. Another good one is ex-c.i.a. dissident John Stockwell (www.thirdworldtraveller.com/Stockwell/).

These two peolple articulate the game best in my view, with Chomsky being by far the best at demystifying the ideologies that perpetuate the problem at its heart.

Basically, Chomsky gives us a kind of "blueprint" in his institutional analysis (like the link below) upon which we can then start to see that people across the board, idealistic youths, cops, etc. have all been successfully made to believe that they're rather alone in wanting society to be sane; and even when they seem to be a part of a group of others, they feel insignificant next to the Appearances of the dominant paradigm. That is, a paradigm soaked with *INTENDED MANIPULATION OF EMOTIONALLY POTENT OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS* on broad terms.

Like any soldier, a cop is well-indoctrinated into the devoutly "normal" belief systems of their society. They don't join up with the police wanting to beat the shit out of or shoot idealistic, often middle class-hailing, youth. But after awhile, after being conditioned by the lop-sided information of those they trust, cops can be manipulated, like any soldier, to believe that beating the shit out of others, or shooting them, is "the only way" problems get "solved."

Dealing with the real problem

First we need to understand how we are all similar in our basic desires for getting along; but we are all manipulated by hype and lop-sided information, and for reasons that we ought to scrutinize.

Whether info is "anti" cops, or "for" cops, both sides are using HYPE, and it's about time the game be demystified so that we can GET BACK to what we wish to do: making society more constructive for all!

It's about time we pull the curtains back from the Wizards of Oz and UNDERSTAND the roots of what is going down!

This is where overhauling the obsolete methods of interacting with terroristic power** comes in (**the state, the business interests which owns it, and the bigoted ideology underlying the entire game). Here, I'd first send you to read Noam Chomsky's speech "MEDIA CONTROL: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda"

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6904/Chom1.html

(this version is complete, unlike ZNet's version)

After you get an understanding of the bigoted ideology that runs Oz/Brave New World, you can then more clearly proceed in creating new methods of interaction with power which don't allow power to fool us over and over again.

The next problem is that policy makers have insulated themselves from the masses for interesting reasons. I don't want to promote that we now begin to hate the string pullers of Oz/Brave New World. I want to promote that we learn how to bridge with each other. No bullshit, no passive game playing, but also no perpetuation of human stupidity!!!!

More on this later!

a sneak preview:

What if persons being deeply hurt by terroristic powers understood that, for one, those pulling the strings are INDIVIDUALS who themselves have been convinced (usually as unprepared kids) that they MUST subordinate their individuality to the Givens of Social Management doctrine?

What if we could organize ways to constantly seek to build bridges to the most responsible-feeling amongst policy makers and their highest ranking implementers? Like u.s. social challengers were able to do with c.i.a. dissident John Stockwell.

Of course, most don't now want to interact with the oppressors in this way; interesting why that is. We're exactly where we're supposed to be.

The "building bridges" metaphor is extremely limited in

applicability, not to say we shouldn't pursue it. My own

thinking about this is constantly evolving. If you had

asked me even a couple years ago about the feasibility of

"building bridges" to class and ideological opponents,

I would have responded with more optimism. The reason

for this limited applicability lies in the complex range

and variation of motivations among those with whom you're

seeking to build such "dialogue." Here's a general, rough

breakdown of strands of opinion and motivations among

social elites in the US and elsewhere, with proportions

varying widely depending on the country. This assessment

includes my totally subjective "guesstimates" as to the

distribution among these categories:

o System ideologues System ideologues are people whose

major activity in life is bolstering the established

property, class, and power relations. They include most

major "personalities" in media, politics, and public

life. They start with the justness and properness of the

status quo as an a priori axiom. There is no possibility

of dialogue with such people leading to change or notable

shift in their attitudes. Only some kind of radical

emotional trauma or epiphany can result in such a thing.

% of elites in US: high (more than 10%); elsewhere:

lower

o Brainwashed citizens Dialogue is highly useful with

people who have been fed a line by manipulative media and

public opinion "consent manufacturers" belonging to the

system ideologue class. Even some members of social elites

fall in this class.

% of elites in US: ?

o Nihilists By "nihilists," I don't mean adherents to any

actual coherent ideology at all, something that might

be dignified with a capital "N," say. I literally mean

people who have no commitment to any "cause" save their

own comfort and self-aggrandizement. Nihilists are often

surprisingly well informed about the disastrous plight

faced by our society and much of humanity, much of it

caused by capitalism, authoritarianism, and outright

thuggery and theft by the powerful. They "understand,"

there really is nothing to explain to them. But they simply

don't think that ANYTHING can be done about it, and they've

adopted an immovable fatalism whose sole consolation lies

in solipsistic hedonism, even if at the expense of most

of humanity.

% of elites in US: high (more than 10%) ; elsewhere:

equally high

So, the moral is that if you're going to spend time

"building bridges," you might as well do it with an

intelligent analysis of where you can expend your efforts

with the most hope of any returns. Obviously, only the

second of these groups is worth spending any effort on.

And it's pretty easy to figure out which group someone is

in. In fact, what anyone really serious about building

bridges needs to do first is try to do a really careful

"market analysis" to get more accurate estimates of these

numbers that I have here just guessed at.

- Chumsky is a little dated & academic - but has been a fountain of strength over the long haul - as has Nader!

- "Reason" surely has its' place - but Anarchists' emotional distillations also do - and shouldn't be dismissed as "Hype", that is somehow just echoing right-wing fascist "appeals to the flag" & such!

- For instance, the fellow who yelled: FACE IT! OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE THE WHORES OF MONSANTO & EXXON - as we all charged the fence in Quebec City, was expressing what a lot of us felt - for one awful lot of reasons! Reasons far exceeding even Chumskys' 20,000 pages of close logic and facts: BOILED DOWN TO 11 words!

- Look at the present situation in Global Warming action? New E.U. "Radical" report wants 90% reductions in maybe 20 years. WE want 100% reductions in 10 - and are calling for the complete ABOLISHMENT of the Fuel-Motor-Car by Jan.1, 2007 & the complete laying down of Biodiverse GREENblock roadways by 2112.

- Though the percentages seem close - they are based on TWO entirely different principles: One, still just "compromise" & exclusive worry about the air & E-devastation. The other? An implementation of Zero-fuel-less technology & a wholesale adoption of Superior Alien technology.

- HE, wants to let "Gas" - with all its' pipelines, animal & human abortions & birth defects through.

- WE, want to eliminate even that - and begin building a new world on a COMPLETELY PURE BASIS.

- Yet their is a certain basis of compromise, between these two positions: we agree that "Gas" can be the "last fuel to go", but insist on the speeded up time-table!

- Because these "relics" of "late industrialist specialization" do NOT link up such things as Fuel-less energy, chemical-free organic food, Affinity Group-circular, leader-less org., , rejection of the Straight line as a basis of geometry incompatible with ZPE energy sourcing, the GREEN-cellular Indust./Agri Global Giga-Village production form, etc. - they do NOT lay a basis for an entirely new world of human valued-beings, and lay themselves open to " compromise" and subsequent corruption by the beastial order of "cosmetically covered" death - which is what we have now!

- See what I mean???

Take another: Why are "Wobblies" suddenly such a potent force of social change, after nearly a century of relative dormancy?

I suggest it is because 90% of jobs are now minimum wage "service transfers" of foreign -made goods. What is going top be important to such workers: 10 cents an hour raise? -Or making sure they are not selling poisons that will make others AND THEMSELVES DIE?

And what of the 50 dollar/per/hour workers guiding machines in value of an excess of one million? Is there really any difference between them & soldiers or police? Mabe a little - police don't run such big "rigs" (except helicopter spotters). You get my point???