Yuku free message boards

Stan, #561, re: "Rebel#480- I wouldn't argue with you about these things because I know you were actually there when these weather underground types were. I was just a toddler watching cartoons and such at the time. Was the weather underground not blowing things up, hurting and killing people? I don't necessarily believe everything I hear in the mainstream or even right wing media, but no one yet has disputed that the weather underground was a violent group of revolutionary types to me."

To take a reality check on this, there were damn few people hurt or killed by the part of the Sixties Movement that the Weather Underground belonged to -- essentially middle class white people who had been radicalized by violence against peaceful protesters by both the authorities and right-wing terrorists. And their counter-violence consisted almost entirely of property vandalism -- destroying files kept by draft boards, trashing police cars, etc. I wrote at the time that the total violence done by the Weathermen throughout their whole existence was less than that done by unruly sports fans over the outcome of a single ball game. ALL of the really heavy violence was either done by total outsiders, like the Manson family, or by "Black Power" fanatics who scared main-stream political protesters of all types as much as they scared the PTB and the Silent Majority. I'm thinking of cases like the attempt to break George Jackson out of San Quentin in 1970, and the murder of New York cops Foster and Laurie in 1972. None of the people convicted in these cases were involved in any way with the Weathermen, and in fact when people like Hoffman and Reubin were eventually sent to jail, it was on very dubious drug charges like those that had been used to put Tim Leary in prison earlier. It's also important to point out that even the minor violence like pouring blood on the files in draft boards was always done by obscure people who read what the Weathermen and others liked them wrote for the underground press as acted on their own. The establishment press at the time said that a well-organized, conscious conspiracy was involved in this, but I was near the center of what organizational structure was actually there, and it was very loose and informal.

re: "That's one reason why your opinions fascinate me. It was very interesting that while everyone said the Black Panthers were intimidating people in some areas on last election day and you had positive things to say about them."

Actually, some pretty sleezy people have called themselves Black Panthers, both back in the Sixites and on down to the present. For example, the people involved in the San Quentin and New York murders I mentioned above had affiliations with the Black Panther Party, but the leaders of that party would actually have worked to prevent both atrocities if they'd known about the plans in advance. The "real" Black Panther Party was devoted to "Black Power" as a specialized version of the powers of self-defense that the Founding Fathers of this country expected all citizens to have and use. And even this was not the Party's primary goal -- that was to help black Americans empower themselves in positive ways like getting access to good educations, jobs, and business opportunities. Plus the BPP, which still exists here in the SF Bay Area, has always done a lot of grass-roots social service work within the black community. The reason they were accused of intimidating people during the 2008 campaign and election was because they openly competed with right-wingers who were going into the same communities they operated in and tried to get white red-necks to register and vote Republican. And this actually only involved a few incidents that got massive media attention for reasons we're already both familiar with. There are also several prison gangs here in California that use the Black Panther name and whose members commit all kinds of crime when they're not locked up, and again, the media cover this in ways that slander the "real" Black Panthers, who have all promised to say completely away from ALL prison gangs if they happen to be locked up.

re: I may not always agree with you on everything, but I give your opinions alot of weight about things I know you had some degree of contact with over the years. I like Glenn Beck, but afterall he has no spirit guides that he speaks of at least and did not live the life to back up the things he says like you did. You seem to have had strong beliefs on many issues from an early age. I am aware that even though he seems fairly intelligent, passionate in his beliefs and well read that before Glenn Beck became a household name he was doing goofy morning zoos on commercial radio. There is no way I could define left or right wing radicals as accurately as you can so forgive me if the wording is off a bit when I say things after a long night."

Well, I don't think the right/left labels mean much anyway, but there's no way for us to avoid using them to because so many of the published political writings we cite contain them. And I don't want to sound like I'm bragging, but it looks to me like I've got more practical experience and book knowledge as a political journalist than most of the media stars. So do a lot of other people who write radical and progressive political articles and editorials and post 'em on the Internet -- we just don't have Plutocrats buying major publicity for our stuff.....

re: "The biggest point I wanted to make is that I wonder what kind of a leader Obama will truly be a few years down the line. This is a question many in the right wing media are raising also. Unlike the right wing media I will acknowledge that the President has surrounded himself with Wall Street crooks who want to continue looting the United States Treasury for Goldman's Hairy Sachs just like they did under George W Bush, but then there are these other people. Maybe they are Czars and maybe they are not. I really don't care what they are being called, but they seem to be getting into their government positions with little approval process. If that is an inaccurate statement then I would love to hear the administration say why instead of arrogantly rolling their eyes like they do on so called Death Panels while many senior citizens shit a brick whenever the words healthcare reform are muttered because of them whether they are in the bill or not. I'm not sure who or what Van Jones, Cass Sunstein and some of the other "Czars" Michael Savage,Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have focused so much on, but they do at the very least seem like a far cry from Wall Street types. I was actually pretty blown away that Obama didn't say anything at all to defend Van Jones when he resigned. To me that was an admission of guilt from the President as if he was thinking something like oops I got caught sneaking a radical into the government. Once again I know you know alot more about Jones than I do so if radical doesn't fit Jones we'll just stick to far cry from Wall Street for now. Don't forget as Muuther has been pointing out I was basically pretty anti Bush and sympathetic to the Democrats when the 2008 election started. I just had a very bad feeling about Obama from the very beginning and thought for sure that most democrats would be able to see through the bullshit of such a blatent con man and not give him the time of day. It was horrifying to me how people fell for his smooth talk and so called rock star status without even daring to question him. When the democrats refused to call him on anything and then essentially took a giant shit on Hillary I felt very alienated and saw a wishy washy politician like McCain who deep down really hated Bush and what he stood for as a viable alternative. Granted I wasn't a huge Hillary fan, but she at least seemed competent and viable enough to line her pockets while actually giving a tinkers damn about the country. Of course she has now proven to be worthless too as anyone who gets involved with this administration seems to be. I actually liked Biden in the very beginning too before he became another lapdog for this insanity running Washington now. As time went on and the democrats just didn't get it at all about all of Obama's red flags Bush was starting to even look good to me for the first time in a long time. Sure he was a coked out maniac who loved to hide behind the Republican's religious lunacy, but he was at least somewhat sincere about it. Trust me when I say I want to believe otherwise, but I have yet to believe that Obama has a sincere bone in his body and I am still hoping and waiting he will prove me wrong."

My best guess is that most of the controversies you just mentioned are going to be forgotten as more important events unfold in the real world. And in fact, I think most of them are just red-herrings anyway, that both the right and the left are dragging around to keep the "sheeple" from doing the obvious .... which is to organize among ourselves and start working to further our own immediate interests, beginning on the family and community level working up from there....

re: "I am actually not only glad, but fascinated by how we share so many similar opinions; especially when you consider how my upbringing was as far right as yours was far left. Sure I have strayed like I mentioned in the last paragraph, but I wonder if this isn't a micrcosm of something bigger. I haven't followed the story very well, but what is going on in NY's 23rd Congressional district fascinates me. A mainstream Republican with Liberal leanings got bumped out by the more conservative tea party crowd. In the short run this cost the district to elect a democrat for the first time in over a century, but I wonder what the long term indications of this will be. First off it made Newt Gingrich look really bad for supporting the mainstream Republican and then defending his decision. I wonder if that won't hurt him in the long run. Again I will need to learn more about this and am purposly not going to Fox to learn about it from them(an OEN story about this might be interesting for a unique point of view). I guess I am really wondering about this tea party movement. It intrigues me.I don't agree with everything they stand for, but they seem to be capturing more support from the right wing in this country than actual republicans right now. I remember you talking about flapping the left wing on the Democrat side. I have to admit that the far left seems to have much better ideas for healthcare reform than the administration nor the right wing actually does. I wonder sometimes that if the far left and the far right while having profound differences may not find more common ground at the end of the day than the so called moderates once labels are set aside?"

These are all issues I feel are well worth discussing further as news breaks concerning 'em, and I'll definitely use material from OEN and similar sites to provide balance for the stuff that gets plastered all over the mass media....

Stan, #563, re: "#482- Threats against leaders from the lizzies is a more than likely scenerio to me too. No matter how morally bankrupt they seem when they seek office I almost believe that the lizzies are so much worse that they start to grow a conscience. That's a cornerstone theme in the novel I've been working on for so many years and have been dying to get my inspiration and maybe even some free time back for finishing it."

I agree, and "leaders" means more than just government officials, plus "lizzies" can be highly visible living people as well as mysterious behind-the-scenes movers and shakers. For example, modern history records that lots of "apolitical" scientists, artists, academic intellectuals, and business leaders have "gone with the flow" when a despotic regime took over in their country and ended up on the payroll of monsters like Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc. The famous behavioral scientist Conrad Lorenz went through this in Germany under the Nazis -- he developed enough of a conscience to help a lot of young German's see through the "Master Race" charade, but not enough to flee the country or join in active resistence, and he was actually investigated a number of times by war-crimes detectives after the War, but esstentially praised with faint damns and left alone. However, a number of the physical scientists working on high-tech weapons research, especially nuclear research, under Hitler went further and lableled successful experiments as failures, which is the main reason the Nazis never got The Bomb, and why their missile weapons were never much more than massive, expensive toys that didn't do much real harm to the enemy. If these scientists had done the obvious and asked to work on tactical rather than strategic missile weapons, (for example serface-to-air missiles for shooting down enemy bombers or "flying torpedoes" for sinking ships instead of small-payload long range missiles for bombing cities), the course of WW2 might have been significantly altered.

Stan, #565, re: "Rebel#480 - If some of the better known communist dictators read and Absorbed Marx more thoroughly perhaps they could have contributed more to the world than heartache. I still believe that a profound spiritual change in the critical mass of humanity will be what it takes to make a system like Marx and Engels proposed truly work, but who knows? If those fourth and fifth stage theocrats do self destruct in the near future anything is possible. That would certainly go in line with some of the new age channelings I have read over the years that talk about evolving in darkness is a finite process with a finite ending that just gets a little more higher evolved than the human race on the grand scale of spiritual evolution across the universe. If I read that correctly that would tell me that the lizzies can keep evolving, but will need to hop over to the side that evolves through light eventually through a more infinite spiral cycle."

Well IMO, all that Marx and Engels really WERE talking about was that the natural course of social evolution IS towards that "profound spiritual change in the critical mass of humanity"....

re: "I wish I knew where I could find a paperback copy of WiH so I could take it with me or keep it in the bathroom(don't laugh) where I can sit longer than at the computer without getting a backache."

Well, when I was channeling and writing WIH under the working title "Spiritual Revolution" between 1983 and 1987, I assumed that the completed version would be published as a pocket-sized paperback like so many other modern occult and paranormal books have been. I circulated a limited number of copies of SR in '87 in an 8/1/2 x 11 format just to get feedback for doing the revision I published as WiH in 1988, and I was quite surprised when my Guides insisted that WiH be published in the same format. My friends and I actually had the money and contacts inside the publishing field to get a few thousand copies of WiH printed as a regular paperback, but the IC wanted WiH to be conspicuously different from the host of similar books that were then being circulated by members of the New Age, traditional Occult, and UFO/Paranormal communities. They WANTED it to look "home-published" so very few book stores would stock it on their shelves and to be too big to carry around easily. I also remember channeling, "We want the book to eventually be circulated primarily in the form your're writing it in." I asked, "You mean as electronic files on a computer hard drive or floppy disk?" And the reply was, "Yes, and more importantly as files on the Internet." In 1988, the "Net as we know it" was just taking shape, but I had no trouble picking up on what they meant, and I think this is when the term "Information Revolution" started getting mentioned very prominently in my discussion of the SR Project with my Guides. And over the next few years, I had quite a few offers by various people to publish WiH as a regular paperback just for the reasons you just gave, so people would find it easier to read, but my Guides always advised me to turn them down and proceed with "Plan A". And at this point in time, I completely agree that my Guides were right, which is why I've never even made WiH available as a PDF file, though other people have done so.