Your enlightenment and historical knowledge never ceases to amase me Francis. 
In reading it seemed  a glimmer  of hope shining through.. i was reading about 
led pink light urban green houses.. along with other agricultural and energy 
generation type of advancements.  It is realisticly possible to create 
selfsustaining communities providing all needed services with..
It would be funny to watch communities working to attract the best teachers 
other community service type personal. 

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: frantheman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 06 May 2015 1:18 PM
Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Cops and robbers



If a society is broken, you won’t be able to fix it with policing. Neil 
pointed out that the “police” and “polite” have a common 
linguistic/cultural root: the Greek word *polis*. “Politics”, of course, 
has the same root. All of these concepts go back to the basic meaning of 
*polis*, “town” or “city”, that location where people come together in 
societies larger than the original hunter-gatherer groups where questions 
of power and conflicts of interest could be regulated in easy, informal 
ways, usually resulting in decisions which were accepted and supported by 
some kind of consensus. It’s worth remembering that this was the universal 
form of societal organisation for humans for around 98% of our existence.

It was only around 10,000 years ago, with the discovery of agriculture, 
that humans started living in larger organisations. The spread of 
agriculture, cities, and the differentiation of functions and competencies 
in larger societies was accompanied from the very beginning by a power grab 
by the strongest – no longer inhibited by the consensus mechanisms of the 
small family/clan group (maximum size around 150 members). If anyone wants 
to read up on this kind of stuff, the writings of people like Jared Diamond 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond> are one way into it.

Since then, humanity has largely been controlled by elites of one sort or 
another. In the better iterations, those with power have realised that life 
is actually better for them if they can win the support of a broad group 
within the *polis*, rather than retaining power through oppression. The 
best way to do this is with ideas/shared mythologies/common narratives, 
which gain legitimation as they become part of the self-identification 
consensus in the society. Examples would be the Roman concept of the *res 
publica *[“the common thing”], or the idea of the king as the divinely 
ordained guarantor of the security and the protector from oppression of the 
little man, or the Enlightenment/bourgeois idea of universal human rights.

The real motivation for the power elites in these cases is the realisation 
that they actually do better when the mass of society is basically 
contented, and has the feeling that they are secure and have the 
possibility of some kind of prosperity. Built-in mechanisms for upward 
mobility and participation also help. If you want to see it completely 
cynically, it’s just a development of the “bread and circuses” concept.

Ideas, however, also bring problems, because their constituent memes have a 
tendency to take on a life of their own. In other words, they work because 
people accept them and believe in them, but then they can also become a 
threat to the elites, because the working-out of their consequences often 
threaten their hegemony. This dialectic is one way of looking at modern 
history from the 18th to the end of the 20th Century. The Enlightenment 
memes of rationality, human rights, democracy, etc. had immense power to 
motivate and activate people, who actually believed in them. “Power to the 
People”, if really applied, means “power away from the elites”.

There was a moment in the West, in the immediate aftermath of the horrors 
of WWII, where the Enlightenment/modern/liberal programme seemed to have 
won the day. It didn’t last. Even in the late 50s, Eisenhower (a 
Republican!), in a prophetic insight into deeper practical reality, warned 
against the “military-industrial complex” and its ability to practically 
negate the whole civil-liberal programme. The struggle for the “soul” of 
society continued through the 60s and 70s before – as Alan points out – the 
rise of neo-liberalism as propagated by Reagan and Thatcher finally sounded 
the death-knell of the inclusivist participational Enlightenment modernist 
project. The really insidious part of this was that the liberal “form” was 
left in place while the content was completely subverted.

There was a realisation among the elites that Lincoln was wrong, you don’t 
have to fool all the people all the time, you just have to fool enough of 
them enough of the time. It doesn’t matter if the hopeless underclass is 
growing, if more and more children are left behind, as long as you can 
continually manipulate the balance of power in your favour. Keep the bread 
and circuses going, keep enough of the people “believing the dream” (while 
at the same time controlling practical access to its actual realisation) so 
that discontent is kept below a potentially dangerous threat level. Even 
modern, sophisticated, information societies need an underclass to flip 
burgers, clean offices, mow lawns, and deliver packages of stuff ordered 
online – hewers of wood and drawers of water. In the US they’re mostly 
black and Hispanic, in Europe they’re immigrants from Eastern Europe, 
former colonies, and all those in Africa and the Middle East who are 
prepared to take the chance of drowning in the Mediterranean just to get 
away from the nightmare of their failed countries of origin (in which 
failure the West itself is deeply complicit). Then you tweak the situation 
even more to your advantage by persuading that proportion of your 
indigenous society which is rapidly falling down the social ladder (people 
who might have had a proud working-class identity fifty years ago but are 
now increasingly becoming just “poor white trash”) that the immigrants are 
the ones to blame for their misery. The result is Tea Party, Front 
National, UKIP, Jobbik <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik>, etc. The long 
con, the big lie, getting turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

Getting back to the point, before this background policing is no longer an 
expression of the self-regulation necessary in an empowered, functioning 
society; instead it’s more and more an instrument of oppression, a 
necessary instrument of social control, the defence of the status quo. The 
Rent-a-mob phenomenon (with strong criminal tendencies) Molly refers to is 
just another consequence of deep dysfunction in our civil societies.

It seems to be the consensus among the elites that this situation is – from 
their point of view – controllable, stable. I don’t really believe that 
this is a conscious conspiratorial consensus, most of it is *ad hoc*, a 
confidence that they can go on riding the tiger indefinitely. Most of the 
educated, working middle-class (and that includes everyone here on ME) is 
lulled into complacence, or moved to supporting the status quo by fear of 
the increasing alienation of the alien underclass in the ‘hoods, *banlieues 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue>*, or camps for refugees/asylum 
seekers. 

I’m afraid we’re all playing with fire. I think of 1788 in Paris, or 1916 
in Russia. Policing as control rather than regulation is trying to increase 
the weight on the lid of a boiling pot rather than turning down the heat. 
The longer this goes on, the bigger the bang when the mechanisms finally 
fail.

 

Am Montag, 4. Mai 2015 12:59:15 UTC+2 schrieb Molly:
>
> The big ongoing news here in the states is the rash of clash between 
> demonstrators and police. The demonstrations are (supposedly) brought on by 
> the ever growing voice against the use of excessive force by police. It is 
> such a complex issue, and the demonstrations themselves are not a simple 
> problem.
>
> Since living in Detroit I've heard many storied about how the riots of 
> 1967 altered the course of history for the city, and changed individual 
> lives forever. Most recently, I cried like a baby listening to the eulogy 
> of a fine man given my his loving wife, my friend. He was a catholic priest 
> at the time, and she a Detroit resident. He left the priesthood afterward 
> and they married a couple of years later. There were over 40 priests at the 
> services, three from Rome officiated the funeral mass. This guy was on the 
> fast track to Cardinal when the riots shook his very core and changed his 
> value system forever.
>
> It gets me thinking about the very nature of the waves of demonstrations. 
> In the sixties, of course, they were spurred by civil rights issues, Then 
> the war in Vietnam (four dead in Ohio). Now it seems, in the age of 
> transparency, the relationship between law enforcement and the criminals 
> they deter (treatment during the time of arrest.) Complicated and 
> exacerbated by the new "protest for hire" gang, the same well funded group 
> that travels the US heightening racial tension (Al Sharpton, Jessie 
> Jackson.) Baltimore's riots had a big gang problem that hasn't been seen 
> yet, the street gangs hoping on board in an organized way to conduct 
> criminal activity in the chaos. Something's gotta give.
>
> Certainly, the police methods employed in some metropolitan cities should 
> be eliminated and cleaned up. But the police have to be able to defend 
> themselves and do their job (which should be protecting and serving the 
> public.) Where any of that goes off the rail is where it gets murky.
>
> When we can't have civil unrest without it being corrupted by monied 
> interests looking to make things worse, there is little hope for societal 
> change. This may be the reason for the current chaos. Follow the money.
>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to