-----Original Message-----
From: tony Eatrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, 1 November 1998 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: opposing from the left (my 2 cents)
>That the poor are not political is a generalisation. In many countries
>and particualrly at key moments of history the poor have been radically
>politicised.
Yes, they finally revolt, and the rich can never understand why either, as
they too tend to be oblivious to reality in their virtual world. The revolt
by the poor is quickly taken over by the rich (organisers) though.
>However even if we concede that the poor are not political we have to
>ask why?
I would prefer the words: 'not capable of being organised' to, not
political. There is where real power lies, in organisations. Bankers, world
wide, might appear to be highly competitive, but they would have a life
expectancy measures in micro seconds if they really practiced anything other
than complete cooperation with the clearing houses.
I reckon Shorris studied the thing long enough to know of what he speaks -
his findings are what I see daily. I live in a boong-infested, violent
country town, and see it every day, exactly how he describes it - exactly
so!. It can be entertaining in a perverted sort of sense; watching dreaming
do-gooders from government, churches, and variegated bleeding-heart types,
completely wasting their time and money trying to organise a mob of
Neanderthals, that will never be organised as long as their arse holes point
toward the centre of the earth; it is good for the do-gooders though - it
keeps them organised at least, even if they can never see they are no
different to the alcoholic, who believes the next drink will produce a
different outcome to all the others, in spite of the fact it has never
happened before; only when he gives up that delusion can he conquer the piss
and release himself from the grip of the grape. An almost impossible thing
to do alone - it requires an organisation again. I can tell you from
experience, that the alcoholic boong can not even understand anything so
simple as that.
How do you educate the ineducable?
>
>MYTHS:
>
>1. The poor are biologically incapable of understanding the concepts
>necessary to improve their situation.
>This is an answer that was thrown about by academics throughout the 19th
>century.
Seems they were right too.
It is also making a resurgence with the claims that a gene for
>homelessness can be identified. Common sense should refute this claim.
>People are homeless when their house is taken from them. Inherited
>wealth (and inherited debt) create generational poverty.
Debt is certainly a problem, which is why I propose a 'Social credit' that
can be earned from 'charity' work. Money, along with CONstitutions and
concrete laws, have to take a back seat in any real civilisation.
Anyone who
>lives in the real world can recognise the physical reasons for their
>situation. Biological claims are merely attempts to justify inequality
>so that it is seen as inevitable.
Maybe they do recognise the physical reasons - unless like an alcoholic or
drug addict, they can justify it all to themselves so well that they believe
the rest of the world is out of kilter, not themselves (I speak from
personal experience here).
>
>2. The poor are morally deficient and would rather attack those weaker
>than themselves than confront the wealthy and powerful.
The reality is, they do just that.
>This is a continuation of old religious attitudes towards the poor. The
>rich and middle class often make this assumption because they are
>denying the reality of what happens to those who confront them. They are
>shot, locked up, tortured, beaten and so on. This state violence is done
>on behalf of the rich and middle class with their consent.
That is because the rich understand the power of organisation. They hate
each others guts and preach competition to the poor but, they would never
get rich, nor remain so, if they really practiced what they preach. The
divvy-and-rule-rule; you see it done on an international level now with the
so-called 'free' trade, economic fundy dogma. Are the rich winning?
Certainly looks like the ploy is working perfectly to me, just like it ever
did so, and ever will.
>These sanctions redirect poor peoples anger. The same thing operates
>with abused children who will sometimes attack and abuse younger
>children, rather than the abuser. The desire is to regain the power lost
>when abused (or oppressed) however the perpetrator is an unrealistic
>target so a weaker target is chosen.
That is exactly what happens.
>These sanctions do not exist against violence directed towards the poor
>or margenalised groups. There is less police effort devoted to
>protecting the poor. Sentences are less as well and there is less chance
>of being caught. There is also less chance of a civil suit as the poor
>can't afford lawyers. Because the poor live with other poor and often
>can't escape the area they can also be intimidated into silence.
>There are reasons which the wealthy put in place which explain why the
>poor attack the poorand not the rich.
What would be the outcome if the poor were organised and the rich
disorganised? (a contadictory statement I know, as organised = rich,
disorganised = poor).
>
>3.The poor don't want to genuinely change their situation.
>This is a partial myth. To some extent structural change is frightening
>to people who have become institutionalised into poverty. However anyone
>who has been poor knows that this can be overstated. Living poverty is
>hell and except in the most impoverished of nations there is usually a
>degree of hope expressed as anger.
Yes, the problem for the poor is how to organise or, more specifically, how
to want to organise. Hence the power of unions before they are talken over
and run for the rich by the rich. Any organisation that is to avoid this
situation, every 20 odd years, has to do a phoenix trick; the old has to be
killed while still fit, before it rots to death.
>
>ACTUALITY:
>
>The real reasons why the poor are not political are complex. To some
>extent I have mentioned them - sanctions against political action and
>institutionalisation. However these reasons are not enough. The evidence
>of this is in the enourmous effort put in by the church, big business
>and the state to prevent political action. Billion dollar propoganda
>efforts try to get the poor to focus on enemies other than the rich
>including themselves. Unionisation is actively discouraged including the
>sharing of information. News coverage is controlled.
>If the poor are so naturally apolitical why is so much effort required
>to prevent them from collectively organising?
Ah, now you have it in a nutshell I believe but, try convincing them (the
brainwashed) to stop buying Corporate propaganda sheets or, sell their
Tunnel Vision sets or, think for themselves for once instead of parroting
slogans - well, I have tried it, and all I get is a frightened bewildered
stare, like they are not sure whether to agree to be polite, or make a bolt
for the door in case you might produce a bible or something.
>
>
>Original message from omega.
>>
snipped original from me
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: tony Eatrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 3:14 AM
>>Subject: opposing from the left (my 2 cents)
>>
>>
snipped tonys original (prego)
>>>Ciao.
>>>tony camilleri
>>>
>>>"http://angelfire.com/sd/eatrich/index.html"
>>>
>>>
>>>______________________________________________________
>>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
>>>
>>>For help with this mailing list, look at
>>>http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
