Keep Calm and Carry on.
Roger Lewis I dislike the word Progressive and it smacks of controlled opposition and Faux condescension to the poor, people not quite like us but its not their fault, and it isn´t ours either by which we demonstrate our lack of culpability by being concerned and `Liberal ´in our views. Paulo Freire said this about being a Radical Person.
“[T]he more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side.”
― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
I believe that Politics and the human families consciousness of political control mechanisms has entered into a Paradigm shift. The idea of legitimacy in the institutions of Government and Political Economy have evaporated as the sheer scale of their failure and lack of fitness for purpose is now almost impossible to conceal.
I read an essay about Henry Kissinger’s Doctoral Thesis yesterday, http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/…/henry-kissinger-a…. It is a very good essay and explains well how Governments find it difficult to justify Real Politick at home, it contrasts Metternick the Austrian Diplomats experience of the Phenomenon with that of Castlereagh the British Foreign Secretary and their roles in the Vienna Treaty of 1815 post the Napoleonic wars. This treaty lasted well up to the momentous events of 1848 a period between the French revolutions and the Myriad revolutions of 1848.
What progressive is trying to signify semiotically is that it is an attitude that is open to an idea of a change in the Status quo but not a scary one, no leaps into the unknown seeking to borrow some of the Legitimacy resting by default on those in government and of the institutions of the establishment.
This thinking is very clear in the DIEM 25 movement and also the present GP leadership who think that change can be provoked from within the Establishment. Whilst it is true that any change will require allies from within the establishment the required impetus will have to come from outside, The Establishment is always the last to see the Paradigm shift and most vulnerable to redundancy from it. ( as this is Facebook I will go light of full references and links to supporting evidence. But let’s accept the old anecdote that as the boss you are always the last to know. ( for now anyway.)
I posted this on another discussion yesterday and add it here as it is part of my train of reasoning for what is better than Progressive. And why I think progressive is a Controlled opposition meme being massaged into potential emerging ´Radical threats´ like Corbyn or a Left Wing Green party.
Hi Peter Hi Ruby. To tackle the thinking behind US foreign policy and the GEO political context dominated by that US foreign policy it is important to understand the Doctrine of Real Politick, Henry Kissinger is the Father of REALPOLITIK in the modern age and it is a matter of fact that he remains highly influential in the US to this day, he has even been to Trump Tower to discuss things with President-Elect Donald Trump.
Here is a link to an essay considering Dr Kissingers Doctoral Thesis
Henry Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-1822 (1957)
´´There are at least two forces at work against which the tragic hero of the statesman struggles. The first is “the problem of legitimizing a policy within a governmental apparatus;” an issue Kissinger calls a “problem of bureaucratic rationality” (Kissinger 2013, 326). While the making of policy is defined by contingency and flexibility, bureaucracies of government measure success in terms of calculability and safety, characteristics uncommonly associated with the messy process of policymaking (Kissinger 2013, 326 – 327).´´
Examining the reality of Foreign policy and its less savoury aspects which public opinion is simply never going to tolerate is a big theme regarding priming the public for war, and for something as ethereal as a War on Terror, the `Big Pearl Harbour like´event is a compelling thesis.
Kissinger was at first selected to Chair the 9/11 commission if anyone doubts his influence in 2001 let alone now 15 years later.
I found this essay as I was looking at Metternich the other day and recalled Kissinger’s Doctoral Thesis and decided to get on and read it.
I am deep in the research for an epic Novel I am writing and these issues (not 9/11) but Power relations as expressed through money and its relationship to the Necessaries of Life.
Anyway, just to wrap up the Real Politick theme and Public opinion here are two thoughts related not to Metternich by Castlereagh the British Foreign secretary in 1815:
´´There probably never was a statesman whose ideas were so right and whose attitude to public opinion was so wrong. Such disparity between the grasp of ends and the understanding of means amounts to a failure in statesmanship.´´
It´s always nice to be able to quote a bit of Shelly,
Castlereagh appears with other members of Lord Liverpool’s Cabinet in Shelley’s poem The Masque of Anarchy, which was inspired by, and heavily critical of, the Peterloo massacre:
I met Murder on the way –
He had a mask like Castlereagh –
Very smooth he looked, yet grim;
Seven bloodhounds followed him
All were fat, and well they might
Be in admirable plight,
For one by one, and two by two,
He tossed them human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew.
Carol Quigley is very good on the public opinion point in Tragedy and hope he says this.
Quigley’s words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretence that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
I am also reminded as I write this of the Truth and reconciliation process in Post-Apartheid South Africa, There is a theory by the way that South African Secret services were behind the Assassination of our Great Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986. The enquiry into that murder has recently been re-opened.
I think the South African Experience can teach us a lot of how we might move on from the last 15 years and the Fabricated War on Terror.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
April 1996, East London, South Africa
On the first day
after a few hours of testimony
the Archbishop wept.
He put his grey head
on the long table
of papers and protocols
and he wept.
and international cameramen
filmed his weeping,
his misted glasses,
his sobbing shoulders,
the call for a recess.
It doesn’t matter what you thought
of the Archbishop before or after,
of the settlement, the commission,
or what the anthropologists flying in
from less studied crimes and sorrows
said about his discourse,
or how many doctorates,
books and installations followed,
or even if you think this poem
There was a long table, starched purple vestment
and after a few hours of testimony,
the Archbishop, chair of the commission,
laid down his head, and wept.
That’s how it began.
Kissinger makes an appearance in these 3 episodes of The Age of Uncertainty entitled, A Weekend in Vermont.
The documentary was produced by Adrian Malone, the father of David Malone Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Scarborough and Whitby Watching all 3 episodes is 3 hours well spent, I decided to watch them all again this morning. Here is the first.
Kissinger was US Secretary of state at the time the programmes were filmed. For some context on plausible deniability, one should reference the Excellent John Pilger documentary on the invasion of East Timor and also the section in Manufacturing Consent on the same subject.
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
The Kissinger bit, well worth watching.
The reason I am labouring the Real Politik point is that Real Politick is coming home in a big way literally. In a Global World financialised Economy The Hybridised Elite is applying policy solutions to their home domestic markets which would have perhaps been concealed from home voters but the Victims of the Home brand of real Politick are the voters of the politicians acting in International interests and not domestic ones.
This is the heart fo the Brexit debate and why so many UK politicians find themselves in such a tricky spot, the Real Politick of federal European policies for International markets simply conflict with the interests of communities at the National level.
Populism and Nationalism have been demonised and we see Varafoukis and his lot of Privileged Left-wing intellectuals preaching the dangers of fascism whilst failing to see that the EU has been overtly fascist since Masterich.
Syriza means Radical or from the Roots. Greek adverb meaning “from the roots” or “radically”(Wikipedia) Podemos means we Can.
Hilary Clintons Election slogan was Stronger together:
What is the new paradigm made of is the question we need to ask ourselves? Technological advances have since the 1930s meant that work according to the old Protestant Work ethic was actually already very old fashioned, mechanisation and digitisation make that even truer today than then. We also have the possibility of free abundant energy from alternatives such as wind and solar and what is known as renewables. Other technologies are a few short years from mass deployment held back only by a broken debt money paradigm which is part of the socio-economic and geopolitical paralysis largely related to US petrodollar hegemony. In short, If people are freed from Debt, the need for employment and food and energy for fuel how do you control them if you are the Oligarchical billionaire class. Answer: suppress the technology and institute an authoritarian regime with controlled opposition and the illusion of democracy, they got that one a long time ago, that’s what we have and that’s what a progressive alliance will guarantee you.
Many Greens it seems would sell their political souls to save the planet because ´´Climate Change´ its almost as worn out as the neo-liberal mantra ´Becuase Markets´.
Radical doesn´t really say enough either if you look at all the evidence Revolutionary is much more apt but of course, loaded with even more baggage than Radical.
As the paradigm shift is happening anyway and the Elites are now unlikely to fully get the genie back int he bottle their only option is Coercive and extreme violence. Our best option in Non Violent civil resistance.
The Green Party manifesto in 2015 was brilliant in many ways, Monetary reform, Subsidiarity even the promise of an EU membership referendum, so what has gone wrong. That manifesto was not Progressive it was a whole lot better than that it addressed the issues which pave the way to the new paradigm which will be a more abundant and fair society with little need for political power based upon the allocation of scarce resources. The Old guard of the Green Party fails to cotton on the Abundance and keep wearing their Gaian hair shirts sadly. Green Fascism is just as much a risk as Golden Dawn in Greece or the Front National in France.
What we should be about is Human potential and cleansing the corridors of power with a business agenda of embracing all of the new opportunities and possibilities from the new scientific and political paradigm. A sort of New PARADIGM PEOPLES PARTY. or a new Paradigm alliance“
New Paradigm Alliance.