Podcast

Kunal Mehta/Shutterstock

Marianne Williamson: We Must Maintain a Healthy Sense of Protest

Speak truth to power
Saturday, December 28, 2013, 1:16 PM

Partisan politics is something we actively avoid discussing on this site. Instead, we prefer to operate in the domain of provable fact. But that doesn't mean that we have written off the political process entirely.

Yes, we believe our own efforts (and those of most of our readers) are much more effective when targeted at the individual and local levels. And we don't hold out hope that sovereign governments will suddenly start implementing solutions that constructively address the economic, energetic, and environmental issues we focus on at this site.

But we are still citizens of the countries in which we live. There is a political mechanism (however broken) for effecting change through our voting power and our civic involvement.

In this week's podcast, Chris talks with Marianne Williamson, a first-time Congressional candidate from California, about the options available to us. This is not an endorsement of Williamson or her political views, but an exploration of the political system with an "outsider" candidate one whose observations will likely resonate with many PeakProsperity.com members.

This interview addresses key questions like: What power do we have as a populace to effect change? What change should we be demanding? How should we be demanding it?

On the Foundational Importance of Economic Justice

Any time you have even the most subtle economic tyranny, you are going to have an analogous situation elsewhere. As soon as you allow for economic injustice, do not be surprised if there are other forms of political injustice. I think that is important, first of all. If you allow the unholy alliance between government and moneyed interests to protect their perch, when it has to do with economic power, it is not surprising to see that there will be the same drive to protect that perch in terms of political power. That is why you see a connection between unfair banking policies, unfair tax policies, unfair trade policies, and even unfair criminal justice policies. It is all connected. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone there. Whether it is something like economic justice because of the dominancy of unfair influence wielded by the corporate sector in terms of tax and banking, the NSA spying or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even the National Defense Authorization Act, any time you are giving power in general to any one group, they are going to wield it within every context that they possibly can. 

On the Need to Maintain a Healthy Sense of Protest

The capacity and permission to healthy protest is the lifeblood of a democracy. If freedom does not include the freedom for the reasonable guarantee that you can gather in group protest and it be safe and a safe place for you to go with your children, then it is like you were saying before: of the people, by the people and for the people, we are currently mocking the Gettysburg Address. We are a government of a few of the people, by a few of the people and for a few of the people. Lincoln said that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would not perish from the earth. It is already perishing.

Not only does of the people, by the people, and for the people – as we were talking about the fact that you cannot disconnect the economics and the civil liberties, if you are talking about what you are talking about now, which is what you just described. To show up at an Occupy protest meant you were surrounded by SWAT teams with the kind of technology that they had and the kind of stories we have all heard from Amy Goodman and others, then our democracy is in serious trouble.

Those of us who are old enough remember a time when this was not true. I am not saying the Vietnam protestors were not looked at and that their leaders were not harassed. There was not what there is now. I think what concerns me sometimes with young people is that they do not remember a time when it was not this way. Once again, the psychological factor is there. Too many people are becoming inured to transgressions against our civil liberties.

Take the NSA spying. If you have a newspaper report where the NSA spying is put right next to an article about Kim Kardashian’s wedding dress, and you are not from a generation that would guffaw at that, that is what you were brought up with. You do not remember a time before the Telecommunications Act of 1996. You do not know. That is what concerns me now. Once again, it is a psychological issue. We are losing our healthy sense of protest. 

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Marianne Williamson (27m:59s):

Transcript: 

Chris Martenson: Welcome to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host, Chris Martenson. As you probably know, our work in the world is to use facts to demonstrate that we are living unsustainably and overdrawing our accounts economically, with fossil fuel energy sources and, most critically, environmentally. Because this message is so tricky to convey under the easiest of circumstances, we consciously avoid territory that is shaped and guarded by beliefs.

Fortunately, we understand this, and we manage to reach a lot of people. One of the belief-saturated areas that we studiously avoid is partisan politics, and not just because of the role of partisan beliefs in derailing rational conversation about the various predicaments we face, but because of our own belief that there happen to be very few differences between the two main parties, as both primarily serve corporate and other special interests at the expense of the people they allegedly serve, the environment, and the future.

We are not alone. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time new low in the last Gallup poll for November 2013, plummeting to the single digits with a woeful reading of just 9%. Just as bad, summing up eight different polls – on the question of whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track – at 68%, more than 2/3 of Americans believe we are on the wrong track. It is very rare that we wade into these waters here at Peak Prosperity, and doubly rare for us to single out a specific politician or political candidate to talk to, but today we are going to do just that.

One has emerged that really stands apart from the crowd. California has 53 congressional districts, and the 33rd is in Los Angeles, largely nestled between routes 5 and 405. Running for that seat is today’s guest, Marianne Williamson, an internationally acclaimed author, lecturer, and thought leader. Six of her ten published books have been on the New York Times bestsellers list. Four of these have been number one bestsellers over the years. She has lectured to hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and abroad. She has many credentials, too many to list. Let’s just say she is highly accomplished and very well spoken. Marianne, thank you for joining us today.

Marianne Williamson: Thank you so much for having me.

Chris Martenson: I want to jump right in. In your own words, why are you running for Congress?

Marianne Williamson: I am running for Congress because of something that you yourself stated. That is that our politics are driven by two major political parties, who are both beholden more to corporate interests than to the American people. That represents nothing short of the dismantling of our democracy.

Chris Martenson: These corporate interests do have a stranglehold on our system at this point in time. How do you propose to go about changing that dynamic?

Marianne Williamson: I think the first thing we have to do is to admit what will not change it. What will not change it is looking to either of the major political parties to deliver us from that condition, given that both of them are so locked into it. Both of them are so beholden to that interest, particularly since the Citizens United case. In order to get elected and stay, they have to do the bidding, as they so often do, of these corporate interests. If there is going to be any serious pattern interruption here, it will come from us, the people.

That is why conversations like this, particularly – whether it is you and your group, me and many people I know, and all people all around the country who are looking more and more in an independent direction – I also think it is significant to know not only how many people are realizing that looking to the political status quo to deliver us from this condition is naïve at best, given that they created in so many cases, but I also think that more and more Americans are looking at the fact that throughout the narrative of American history, the major movements, social movements forward with political consequences, did not emerge from major political parties, whether it was abolition or women’s suffrage or the Civil Rights movement. We are really part of a historical lineage of what happens when the people of the United States recognize that our government is swerving away from its basic role of balancing the issues of individual liberty with a concern for the common good. It is time for the American people to do an intervention.

Chris Martenson: An intervention? I certainly love that. I do agree with your assessment that all changes to the status quo seem to have been brought kicking and screaming from the outside in; many of them we count as our best successes. It is time for a new direction. It is not just economically. I am sure you are familiar with so many people. It is not just the 99%; let’s call it the 99.8% who really feel like this is not working in our best interests at this point in time. Economically, we have that. On other subjects as well, there are a lot of reasons that the people I talk to are very concerned about the direction we are heading in. I think it transcends just needing a few tweaks and wiggles here and there, and maybe a couple of new votes. We really need to do things in a fundamentally different way, which includes things for the bulk of the people. How would you approach that?

Marianne Williamson: First, let’s point out that the two are connected. Any time you have even the most subtle economic tyranny, you are going to have an analogous situation elsewhere. As soon as you allow for economic injustice, do not be surprised if there are other forms of political injustice. I think that is important, first of all. If you allow the unholy alliance between government and moneyed interests to protect their perch, when it has to do with economic power, it is not surprising to see that there will be the same drive to protect that perch in terms of political power. That is why you see a connection between unfair banking policies, unfair tax policies, unfair trade policies, and even unfair criminal justice policies. It is all connected. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone there. Whether it is something like economic justice because of the dominancy of unfair influence wielded by the corporate sector in terms of tax and banking, the NSA spying or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even the National Defense Authorization Act, any time you are giving power in general to any one group, they are going to wield it within every context that they possibly can.

Chris Martenson: Indeed they will, and they have. You just ran down a whole litany of things, from the way that the trade structure is working primarily for certain interests against others, but most importantly – a big hot button for myself and many of our listeners – the loss of civil liberties. That has been especially egregious over the past number of years, especially with the NSA spying revelations. This idea that we the people need to assume some of the power back, how do you propose that we go about doing that?

Marianne Williamson: This is one area where I think you and I would see things in a complementary way, but with a slightly different focus. At the beginning of this interview, you talked about rationality and facts. I think there is a tremendous psychological element here. Just as in physical healing, it is not nothing. It is not metaphor. It is not a symbol. It is actual, and it is literal. It has to do with how people behave.

What has happened is a kind of mesmerization of the American people, where politics itself has been turned into a spectator sport. That is really an issue here. Someone like yourself, like the people who normally listen to you, people like myself and the people who listen to me, are very aware that we need to do something. Our biggest problem, I believe, is how many Americans have not yet gotten to that point. They are waking up to realizing how severe the issue is. I do believe that is happening. People are waking up to recognize how severe the problem is, but there is a very deep psychological issue here, because we were raised to believe that if things got too unfair, the government would fix it. We now have to face the fact that the government is often on the side of the perpetrator. They are often now on the side of those who would encroach upon our rights.

That produces a lot of fear in people. It is like a child having to face the fact that he or she is not sure Mommy or Daddy can be trusted. There is a lot of psychological dismantling of an old belief system that has to occur before people will add their energy and their behavioral patterns to an effort to fix the problem. This is, in a way, child psychology, but in a way, it is also adult psychology, when you are talking about it. I was reading a book recently about the abolitionist movement. The book was about the years that it took for people coming – individual by individual – to understand how severe the problem was.

First, people have to wake up. This was interesting because it included southern abolitionists as well. Imagine what it would be like to be born into a slave-owning family, and to realize as a child that you have slaves in the house and there is evil there. The whole community is evil, and the whole thing is evil. People would go one of two ways. They would either buy into it because it was too difficult not to, or go through the often very painful process of knowing that in order for them to stand against it, they had to split from their family, from the people who love them and everything they know. This book was interesting because it was talking about it. You really got clear about all of the layers of human understanding that preceded the abolitionist movement actually bursting into a political movement that changed things on an external level.

I think that is what is happening right now. The first thing is for more people to understand what has happened, to understand that we do not need to be scared and we just need to become active, to understand that this is what has happened before in history and that, in fact, this is what happens whenever systems of great money and great power are able to wield the kind of power they have been able to wield over the last few decades, with as much acquiescence from the people as they have received and as much disengagement on the part of so many people. What has happened is that the thief has entered the house of democracy, and through all of these different policies, trade policies, banking policies, tax policies, and all of the civil liberties issues you and I are talking about, we are saying, Oh, my goodness. What happened to our democracy? I also think it is important for us to realize that we left the doors open and we left the windows open.

What I see in people is a lot people having to work out what has happened here, so that they are not afraid to trust the voices like yours and mine saying it is unacceptable and we have to change this, and to know that we are actually part of a great historical lineage, whether it was abolitionists or the Civil Rights movement or women’s suffrage, who said we are going to back to democracy, we are going to embody democracy, and we are going to manifest democracy. We are going to do whatever it takes to give this evolutionary movement political heft. In 1776, we rejected and repudiated, Americans repudiated an aristocratic system in 1776. We need to do it again. This time, not with a revolution, obviously, but with an evolutionary movement with real political heft. That is what I see happening here.

Chris Martenson: I love the idea of an evolutionary movement, particularly if we have to look in the mirror and say, We have met the enemy. He is us. I see, from my perch, that our narrative has really broken down. You mentioned the democratic narrative, the one that we learn about in grade school. This is how it works: It is of the people, by the people and for the people. You grow up, particularly in our current era, and you say it may not be exactly how it is working. It is hard to reconcile that. We are having a complete breakdown in our monetary narrative as well. For the average person listening to this, money is a very real substance. You either have it or you do not. In our society, if you do not have it, life can be very difficult. We see more and more of that money accumulating to fewer and fewer hands. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is busy printing $75 billion a month, after the taper announcement, out of thin air. From my vantage point, our money system is now being run in a way that is guaranteed to shred our narrative.

By the way, a nation’s money is its social contract. It is being tinkered with at this point in time. I completely understand that this is not a time to be scared. We need to be active. For people who can look at this as a really potentially interesting moment in history to be alive – and I like that framing – how should we be active at this point in time? How do we go about really getting that critical mass that we need so that we can be successful, like people have in times past?

Marianne Williamson: Every cell in the body is programmed to do that which would be its highest service, as well as collaborating with other cells to work together to be a high service to the healthy functioning of the whole. I think in our hearts, in our minds and in our conscience, in our deepest places, we are each programmed. We are each called to the way that we ourselves can be best of service. I have felt it in terms of running for office, because I do think we need to run candidates on this message. You have felt it in terms of your website and your group. You have felt it in terms of interviewing me today. This is how movement gets built. Each person contributes the part that they feel is their highest and best use, and collaborates with other people in such a way that they synergistically contribute more than either one could by themselves. That is how movement works.

Chris Martenson: What is interesting to me is that I noticed a shift over time, that a lot of the people who would come to listen to economic talks, when I gave talks centered on economics, were largely Boomers. Over time, I started to really wonder where the younger people were in this. With a number of years of inquiry, I discovered that it boils down to a real generational split going on that I can summarize in a single sentence. For a lot of Boomers, they have everything to lose if the status quo is shifted; for a lot of the young people, they have nothing to gain by preserving the status quo. From my vantage point, I am seeing a real split in thinking. I am wondering, in the spirit of bringing our best and highest programming to service and collaborating, if you have looked at this, the way the generations are looking at this and how we can begin to work together on this?

Marianne Williamson: I think it is a fascinating construct that you described. I am sure it is true. We do have, particularly in the Millennial generation, a group that is willing – in a way that I find very healthy – to repudiate the status quo. On that, I think that is one of the best things that has happened in America in a long time. I would not say it is the problem, but I think a challenge right now is that the polls show that while they are the most activistic in a long time, and the most willing to repudiate the status quo in a long time, they also leave out of their formula the electoral politics. I think that electoral politics are an important part of how this change is going to occur. If we only have a sidebar conversation, if we only have a conversation going on in terms of private sector, even the non-profit private sector, then I do not think that we will be able to get to the gist of the problem. That is why I hope that we can turn electoral politics into a kind of more modern pursuit.

I see this in my own campaign. If you talk to the Washington guys and the East Coast guys, in the way they go about the technology and the way they go about the aesthetic of campaigning, I understand why younger people would not respond. It is like they are stuck in the 1990s at best. I am living that conundrum right now. We really have to claim politics for the truth of who we are today. I think in some ways, young people are the ones who will recreate that field. One of the things that I think is our job is reminding them that traditional electrical politics do matter and that the kinds of changes we want to make will not happen without including electoral political campaigns in the formula.

Chris Martenson: I completely agree on a number of levels. I do sympathize with those who feel that politics, as it is currently practiced, does not quite have the vision that captures them – or worse, they are cynical and believe that the system will militate against them, if I can use that word. I saw that when Occupy Wall Street was first happening. Here were all these bright and shiny young people, in classic form, full of energy, maybe not with a single point of focus, all over the map. They had great energy. I was down at Zuccotti Park, and it was completely rimmed with the latest Department of Homeland Security hardware. There were face recognition cameras on stocks. There were police everywhere. The response in our country has become hostile to any changes. I am certainly sure that message was well received by all the progressive groups that have been recently infiltrated by a variety of acronym organizations from the government.

It really feels like there is an antibody response to anybody who really wants to bring change, harkening back to this being how these things happen in history. Is this how you see this gearing up? Is it time for us to step into the fray, that this might get interesting and it is time to go forward?

Marianne Williamson: I think that the point you just made hearkens back to one I made a few minutes ago about the psychological factor. That is very dangerous for democracy, what you said. The capacity and permission to healthy protest is the lifeblood of a democracy. If freedom does not include the freedom for the reasonable guarantee that you can gather in group protest and it be safe and a safe place for you to go with your children, then it is like you were saying before: of the people, by the people and for the people, we are currently mocking the Gettysburg Address. We are a government of a few of the people, by a few of the people and for a few of the people. Lincoln said that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would not perish from the earth. It is already perishing.

Not only does of the people, by the people, and for the people – as we were talking about the fact that you cannot disconnect the economics and the civil liberties, if you are talking about what you are talking about now, which is what you just described. To show up at an Occupy protest meant you were surrounded by SWAT teams with the kind of technology that they had and the kind of stories we have all heard from Amy Goodman and others, then our democracy is in serious trouble.

Those of us who are old enough remember a time when this was not true. I am not saying the Vietnam protestors were not looked at and that their leaders were not harassed. There was not what there is now. I think what concerns me sometimes with young people is that they do not remember a time when it was not this way. Once again, the psychological factor is there. Too many people are becoming inured to transgressions against our civil liberties.

Take the NSA spying. If you have a newspaper report where the NSA spying is put right next to an article about Kim Kardashian’s wedding dress, and you are not from a generation that would guffaw at that, that is what you were brought up with. You do not remember a time before the Telecommunications Act of 1996. You do not know. That is what concerns me now. Once again, it is a psychological issue. We are losing our healthy sense of protest. That is why even though the Tea Party, for the most part, represents political views that are diametrically opposed to mine; I appreciate and celebrate their revolutionary spirit. They are like, We are not going to take this anymore. I think we need some of that spirit today.

Chris Martenson: We need that spirit and something else that I feel that from my vantage point seems to be missing, the spirit of compromise. We saw Washington shut down over some relatively minor budgetary amounts. In truth, you brought back a very important point. Young people today may not have the institutional or residential memory of how things could be different. Pretty much everybody in Washington today has been alive during a time when we have been spending more than we have been taking in. I think that has fostered a relative lack of ability to compromise. I think those are skills. I am wondering, if you are elected, how you would approach compromise. I think Washington is all about compromise, although they have lost it on some important topics.

Marianne Williamson: I think politics is about compromise. I think there is a philosophical vision in life with which you do not compromise. When it comes to politics, you must compromise. I think an unwillingness to compromise is beneath the professional minimum standard that should be accepted of any person in Congress. There are places where you hold the line, absolutely. What we have are many people in Congress today for whom everything is a matter of non-negotiable, ideological principles, such as whatever Obama wants, we do not want. That would be the view that many people would have. This Congress has actually demonstrated that. Anything the president wants, even if it is something that in the past they themselves proposed, they will be against on principle. The whole system breaks down when you have that kind of an attitude. I certainly understand how important it is to compromise, not with my beliefs, not with my principles, but at certain times, absolutely, in terms of legislation.

President Eisenhower said the American mind at its best is both liberal and conservative. I think that is true. There is a yin and yang there. There is a drive to conserve those things which are eternally true and to insist on a level of personal accountability. That needs to be balanced with a more liberal view of answering to immediate circumstances in a flexible way, along with a concern for the common good that would make sure certain people were taken care of, such as children, the disabled, veterans, or whatever, because they deserve to be. I think that a certain level of balance and compromise – any of us who have been in an intimate relationship, and this is part of whether you are two people in a relationship or two huge political forces in a relationship – learning to hear the other person, to recognize that no one has a monopoly on truth, and to learn from other people. To build compromise from that place is a creative act and should be central to our political system.

Chris Martenson: Very well said. I have to ask how your campaign is going.

Marianne Williamson: I think my campaign is going well. It is going well in that I am going all over my district talking to people whom I think are very enthusiastic, a lot of times, because of the very things that you and I are talking about, who realize that the kind of conversation I have been having about the way money now dominates our politics in a way that is unhealthy and undemocratic, the fact that looking to the political status quo to deliver us from that situation is unreasonable given the fact that they created that situation, the idea that if we had enough independent voices, even 18 or so in Congress, that it would break the gridlock, people understanding about the two-party duopoly and understanding that it is an aberration and not a tradition in American politics, and educating people in some cases.

I think a lot of people do not realize some of the unbelievable and unnecessary amounts of human suffering that have resulted from this financial lock and chokehold of a very small sector of our society, whether it has to do with children living in poverty or our high mass-incarceration rate. People understand a little more about why it would be a good idea to audit the Fed. The excitement that I feel, the support I feel, and the enthusiasm I feel are very heartening. The question is whether I will be able to create a campaign that is able to be competitive against the institutional forces that will be arrayed against us. That remains to be seen. I am doing everything I can to create a campaign that can and will do that. It is early in the game, but not that early. All I can tell you is that I am trying. I am feeling hopeful. I am certainly reading a lot of enthusiasm from people. I hope that I will be able to turn that into an electoral victory. We will see.

Chris Martenson: Fantastic. If people wanted to support you, how would they do that?

Marianne Williamson: MarianneForCongress.com. I would appreciate any support people feel moved to give. This is a grassroots campaign. I will not be receiving money from pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications companies like others running. Even $5 a month is a big help. That is how people can do it, MarianneForCongress.com. Also, put it on your Facebook. Put it on your Twitter. Help me get the word out so people can know about the campaign. I would be very grateful.

Chris Martenson: Marianne Williamson, thank you so much for your time today. We desperately need people like you in power, who are not afraid to speak truth to power. We need our country headed in a new direction, or a whole new set of directions. I really wish you the best of luck in the next election, and in all the years that follow.

Marianne Williamson: Thank you. Right back at you; all my best. Thank you so much.

About the guest

Marianne  Williamson

Marianne Williamson is an internationally acclaimed author, lecturer and thought leader. Six of her ten published books have been New York Times Best Sellers. Four of these have been #1 New York Times Best Sellers.

In 1997, she published Healing the Soul of America, calling for a holistic perspective on America’s political system. The book is an insightful examination of our history and politics, offering personal and political solutions for the renewal of our democracy.

Marianne began her career as a lecturer in Los Angeles in 1983, and since that time she has lectured to hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and abroad. She has written books that include the mega bestseller A Return to Love, The Age of Miracles, Everyday Grace, A Woman’s Worth, Illuminata, Healing the Soul of America,  The Gift of Change and The Law of Divine Compensation.

For the past thirty years, Marianne has been a formidable activist for social justice. In 1990, she founded Project Angel Food, a meals-on-wheels program that serves homebound people with AIDS in the Los Angeles area. She also co-founded The Peace Alliance, promoting legislation to establish a United States Department of Peace. And she serves on the Board of Directors of the RESULTS organization, working to end the worst ravages of hunger and poverty throughout the world.

Related content

33 Comments

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 257
A revealing truth

regarding the legal system and our unwitting enslavement.

www.servantking.info

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2793
Thanks Chris

I can't tell you how happy I am to see this interview.  If it represents the new course you have hinted at for 2014 and beyond, I am on board.

I have, in my own not always coherent way, been advocating a similar approach for some time on this site.  That is, look at the issues and decide what the right approach should be, not what tptb say.  Ms. Williamson is, according to her campaign website a strong advocate for taking on climate change:

http://www.marianneforcongress.com/climate_change

Quote:
Too much of America’s energy – 81%, in fact -- continues to come from fossil fuels that pollute our air and water, causing global warming and weather disruption more intense with each passing year.

This is not just unfortunate, or even critical; it is a clear and present danger to the future not only of our country but to life on earth.    

Our reliance on oil makes us dependent on energy supplies from other countries, particularly in the Middle East, drawing us more easily into military actions to defend access to oil. The federal government supports the use of fossil fuels by handing out massive tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies that are among the most profitable corporations in the world. The top five oil companies made $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011, yet they receive $10-52 billion in tax breaks and subsidies every year.

Legalized corruption makes it almost impossible to truly take on the power of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants that receive massive tax breaks from the government. Once again, until we deal with the issue of money’s undue influence on our political system, none of this will truly change.

I agree with her that a third way must be found in the halls of Congress to address all issues.  Many issues are developing that are attracting coalitions between the left and right, not least of which are the environment and civil liberties.  Taking them on in a fact based, data oriented way should be the hallmark of a growing noisy and at times civilly disobedient movement to replace our truly dysfunctional government with people who care about democracy.

BTW, the reflexive anti-Boomer mentality that has found a place on this site as well as the larger media is wrong headed.  The youth that Chris and Ms. Williamson are appealing to would do well to emulate the Boomers and seek their advice in moving forward.  Ms. Williamson admits to being a Boomer and, if I understand correctly, so is Chris.  Remember, the Boomers were anti-LBJ and anti-Nixon.  In the main, they were and are anti-war, pro-environment and pro-civil liberties.  The fact that some members of the generation are now in the halls of power, does not negate the the ethics and basic human values that most still believe in.  They share a lot with today's young people and goodness knows they have vast experience in political action.  If the one "Occupy" and one gun rights events I attended are any indication, there is a lot of grey hair among both groups.

Doug

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 520
Very awesome

I like this gal!

RoseHip's picture
RoseHip
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 5 2013
Posts: 89
Wonderful interview

I love that this discussion is happening and someone who gets it is exercising their voice and direction for change. One very interesting point I found was encouraging people to have their response be understanding and not fear based. I currently see the chips stacked against understanding. Here are some of the ideas that I think would turn this around. I see a deep need to qualify DOING. If the things in our lives see the average person doing less work, more play, more love, more cooperation, less debt, more heart centered interactions, then I see the likely outcome will be encouraging UNDERSTANDING. If we see the DOING as increasing debt, increased competition, increased poverty, wage gap, increased comodification of life and experiences then the people will surely be fear based.

I don't think of Climate change as something that needs fixing, I see it as one of the symptoms of our seperation from each other and life. If we change our internal workings and then react to those changes then we will naturally behave in ways that directly and indirectly begin to reverse climate change. Climate change reversal must be a symptom of our change, turning away from todays control ideology, and returning to our relationships in non-monitzed ways to find the answers. Those psychological issues discussed here must be where we place our focus and attention, and further our noticing skills. Thru the lense of truth and trust.

Rose

SPAM_ferralhen's picture
SPAM_ferralhen
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2009
Posts: 151
we boomers protested the

we boomers protested the vietnam war, it ended, while how many other usa wars continued and how many new wars sprang up?  mish had a visual aid showing where us forces are stationed around the world.all ovr basically.vietnam ended but us policy didn't. and hasn't.

thinking protest will change anything, is failing to realize it changes us .not the gov't. not policy. 

protest makes us think if we protest, we have been heard. and once we feel heard, we go back home. the web is being used this way big time.and so are we if we buy into this.

last i have to call on chris who has always said change will come from the outside in. voting in a candidate in the status quo system is 180 degrees from that.... now saying if elected marianna can change everything from within and you too can feel part of it?....c'mon you really think so?  if so then why and how? one voice to represent?

mlk didn't run for office. he got a grass roots movement moving. moving so well they killed him to stop it.

i'd like to see marianne and chris get a movement started on the outside. then i might subscribe to it.not to see them killed, but then i would know the people are really standing up to protest. getting t he people to vote in a non counted system is pure stupidity. but sheeple will be sheeple.

i am big time disappointed to see this article.what is next? an article from jamie dimon saying how the banks have our best interests at heart?

fh

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 3592
Me too!

sand_puppy wrote:

I like this gal!

I really do too, and the main reason is that she's clearly done her inner work and I have a gut-level trust that she will remain true to herself however long she spends in D.C., as did Ron Paul.

Real values and convictions are things that I value within myself, and I believe I can detect them in others as well.

Will it change anything to have one person with a strong inner compass and matching compassion in D.C.?  Probably not, but like the old joke about lawyers goes it's a start!

And, yes, I am a (tail end) boomer, but I truly think that the "me" generation has well and truly dropped the ball and will have to shift greatly to rescue an honorable legacy for itself. My thinking on this centers on the fact that pretty much everybody in power right now is a boomer, and the level of outright ignorance and denial is just stunning as the existing power centers do everything (in)humanly possible to ignore reality and keep the top spinning for just a little bit longer.

Will Marianne Williamson change the game?  Nope, probably not, and neither will I, or you, or anyone else in particular.  But together?  Maybe.  What else ever has?

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2793
Vietnam and civil rights

I would remind everyone, Vietnam ended, eventually, after much protesting and despite assassinations of JFK and RFK and a dedicated pro-war establishment. Civil rights made giant leaps forward in the 50s and 60s thanks to grassroots political actions despite assassinations of MLK, Malcolm X and Medgar Evers and a dedicated racist establishment throughout the south and to a lesser degree elsewhere.  Both of these movements involved a lot of civil disobedience, beatings and some killings.  If you aren't willing to risk a lot, you won't get much done.

Neither of these movements would have accomplished much without grassroots mass actions influencing government policy making.  Remember the infamous  saying attributed to Chuck Colson (sleezeoid general counsel to Nixon, later converted to born again Christian after a prison sentence)  "Once you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."  It isn't clear whether he was referring to the Vietnamese or Congress, but I think the sentiment should apply to any movement to change the hearts and minds of our elected critters.  You must play hardball.

We have not had true grassroot movements of sufficient size or militancy to effect legislative actions since Vietnam.  When we can fill the mall in DC with supporters of a third way, there will be change.  Although the internet can make some parts of that easier, the internet itself cannot replace mass numbers of people in the streets disrupting the smooth functioning of the status quo.  That hasn't been done in a long time, but must be if you really want significant change.  If you think you can do it without changing political powers, you are fooling yourselves.  The corporatocracy is firmly in control until we change it.

Doug

Dwig's picture
Dwig
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 4 2009
Posts: 113
The value of protest?

ferralhen,

Well, I'm a pre-boomer (for whatever that's worth), but I feel your pain.  My initial reaction was "enough with the protests already -- we need to focus on what we can control (at least to some degree) -- our lives, our communities, our local economies, etc.".

However, I've noticed something interesting, starting with the drama of the Occupy movement.  "TPTB" are in fact quite scared of people power.  As one example, look at the hornet's nest Manning and Snowden tipped over.  In a well-ordered dictatorship, they would have been quietly disposed of, the media would have published a short series of articles condemning them as enemies of the people, and that would be that.  Instead, it was the instant and massive public outrage over the clear disconnect between the "official story" and the reality that has Washington running scared.  (In an earlier era, it was Daniel Ellsberg's revelations that helped change U.S. policy on the Vietnam war.)

So on balance, I think it's worth helping to get a few mavericks in Congress, and continuing protests -- not that they will bring about massive change, but that they can help to keep at least some weight on "our side" of the scales.  Meanwhile, also keep preparing for a very different future.

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
I liked the interview, a

I liked the interview, a refreshing change from the last few interviewees with their rather tedious Austrian bona fides….

Perhaps Ms. Williamson will follow in the footsteps of other independent female politicians in recent light, Kshwana Sawant in Seattle for example, or Elizabeth Warren, both with commitment to challenge the status quo. We need more like her, not afraid to disconnect from the two party system and stand for something more.

I find Ms. Williamson’s reference to the Abolitionist movement of the American late 19th century particularly instructive. While most know of the vast differences between Abolitionists on the one extreme, and the slave owners on the other, many are not aware of the substantial role played by the middle, or moderates in this volatile conflict of social relations.

The years of slavery and the resulting American Civil War have been described in many ways, encompassing many themes, from State’s Rights issues to the argument  that slavery was a “necessary evil” needed for the control of labor, but in the end, the conflict was primarily about class relations and class structure.

Slavery was (and still is) a class structure that requires exploitation to function.

Specifically, exploitation in the form of ownership of another human being for the purposes of appropriating that person’s work product for personal profit.

During the period of conflict pre-Civil War, while historical memories focus on the extreme positions, (Abolitionists vs. Salve Owners) much of this time was consumed with arguments from “sensible people”, realists, pragmatic types that sought compromise and stood to keep the extreme sides apart with stiff arm separation.

They introduced and supported legislation that made life easier on slaves, passed laws banning exportation or importation of slaves (1808), and numerous other types of half measures that sought to relieve the plight of the slave, but never really attacking the central issue-which was intrinsically confrontational, and dangerously so.

In retrospect, these so called “moderates” did incalculable damage to the movement by sidestepping the (now obvious) confrontation that had to occur, and delayed by decades, if not centuries, what could have and should have been a straightforward morality call. In hindsight of course, efforts to make life easier on slaves while still allowing slavery to be legal is a preposterous and nonsensical position, and these machinations and delays remain a dark stain on American history.

Fast forward to today, and we have yet another nationalized class structure that requires exploitation to function, appropriates an individual's work product for personal profit, while at the same time consuming finite natural resources and destroying the environment at a truly alarming pace.

An even more compelling case than 19th century America it would seem, yet, we have still no shortage of moderates and “sensible” voices adding their “contributions” to the political economy.

If we should be so fortunate as to have descendants who may be in a position to judge these current times in hindsight, as we have had with the issue of slavery, I hope they are more generous in their assessment of our morality and critical thinking skills.

I wish Marianne Williamson the best in her endeavour.

lld3j's picture
lld3j
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 19 2009
Posts: 8
I like her too.  Too bad

I like her too.  Too bad she's not running in Virginia.  I thought Tom Perriello was was the best thing to happen in our district;  his tenure was way too short.

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 157
I have always enjoyed

I have always enjoyed listening to Marianne Williamson when I've seen her on TV. I certainly have resonated with her message on spiritual issues. The podcast was an intelligent, thoughtful conversation between two people looking for ways to effect positive change in our country.

But . . .

I suspect it's too late for such things. Not just when it comes to political and economic change, but the most important change of all, sufficient radical change in our relationship with this planet. Enough nonreversible tipping points have already occurred with rising temperatures, melting Arctic ice, large methane plumes, acidic and depleted oceans, and all of them happening at an increasingly accelerated rate, for such things as who runs for political office to really matter. Nature has taken over now and we are helpless to reverse or even do much to mitigate the enormous changes we've caused in our biosphere. To me, this is like having a discussion about changing the captain on the Titanic after it's already hit the iceberg and is sinking. Too little, too late. Some climate scientists say the Arctic ocean could be ice-free in the summer by 2015 for the first time in millions of years, causing major changes to the climate. Melting permafrost and ocean clathrates will release even more methane along with possible fire storms. Methane is a very potent GHG which will further add to climate instability. The fact that we are losing 150-200 species per DAY doesn't seem to penetrate our denial. We could be looking at only another 20-30 years before the planet becomes uninhabitable. The web of life is unraveling.

Fukushima is another example of our thoughtlessness and carelessness when it comes to the health of the planet. Every day for over two years, radioactive water has poured into the Pacific. It is due to arrive on the west coast soon. It's unlikely they will be able to stop the outflow for some time and, in fact, are talking about releasing the water in the storage tanks into the ocean. Tepco's many lies about the severity of the problems at Dai-ichi lull people to sleep. But there are deadly consequences for what is happening there on the inhabitants of the ocean and those along its shores. It has the potential to affect the entire Northern Hemisphere.

I've come to the conclusion that given the above, we are no longer dealing with a matter of how to change what is happening, but with how to face the consequences of our actions. We had our chance as a species and we blew it. Protests, no matter how healthy they are, aren't going to change this dire picture. What we can change is how we choose to respond to it on an individual basis. Things are deteriorating and aren't going to get better. We are like patients in hospice faced with the end. Will we use our impending death as an opportunity to grow until the last minute or will we meet it with fear and denial? Only thing is, most people don't even know they are terminal and are busily engaged in business as usual, meaning political strife, wars, further resource depletion and pollution and the attempt to control others through propaganda and economic predation. There isn't time to change such ingrained behavior on the level it would need to. There isn't the will to alter ourselves radically enough to matter. Most people just don't care.

So here we are. Run for office, write a blog, dig a garden, plant a tree. Do whatever will fulfill you with the time we have remaining. Knowing our time is limited gives it even more meaning, not less. Besides, it's hard to just do nothing, especially for those of us who are used to success and achievement. We don't know how to handle a problem that can't be solved. So we'll continue to do what we've always done. Until our time is up.

My good wishes to Ms. Williamson in all her endeavors.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 520
I hear your dilemma, Jdye51

How do we find joy and meaning when we realistically understand that it all ends "6 feet under."  The same planetary predicament you describe is shared by each of us in our individual human lives also.  Our human life ends with our passing and our bodies being laid to rest in the earth.  And the same of my wife, my beloved dog, and children.

Where do we find joy and meaning while we live when we understand that this is the eventual outcome?   

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 157
More info

For further info see Guy McPherson's latest update on 12/20/13:

http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

RoseHip's picture
RoseHip
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 5 2013
Posts: 89
I used to be seen as crazy

But now I seem to be making more sense, well at least that's what my false sense of reality is feeding me. And after all this time I had just got comfortable in my label.

We went thru our first opportunity to make the necessary changes in the 1960's. Now in our second attempt we have shoulders to stand on. All is not lost until it is! These are special times and during special times what was a miracle is now ordinary, latent gifts and talents that have laid dormant are coming alive. Granted this time around the rides going to be a bit more bumpy. We might need to borrow Arthur's yacht idea.

As the center falls away look to margins. The paradox is only a paradox in the context of separate beings in an objective universe.

This machine may only be able to light one light bulb at this time, but it's 3d printing is scalable.

http://syncrenicity.com/2013/12/28/sync-first-finally-solution-building-free-energy-system-home-first-one-now-come-across-3d-printing-free-energy-solution-vid/

Rose

SPAM_ferralhen's picture
SPAM_ferralhen
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2009
Posts: 151
i see a similar set of

i see a similar set of circumstances as jdye51, however i haven't rolled over and died yet. people will survive this...maybe not me...but i am trying to not only live in a sustainable way, but leave behind the tools for the survivors to use. ...all the fields that are currently cleared, were cleared by hard working individuals and horses back in the 1830's(where i live) who had an eye for their offsprings future.

we must think past ourselves. we must think past congress.politics.money.gold.whatever

the way to find happiness and deal  with being at some point 6 ft under, is to see that we are not the only generation of mankind to be here.we can enjoy our hard labour.we can enjoy what it brings. and we share. and we plan and we leave more behind than we took. we let go of entitlement and are thankful the roof didn't fall on us today. we have gratitude for the state of being.

i am an artist. i try to leave something behind that brings meaning to those that follow me.

i must transcend my own wants and needs, at some point.

we must see to leave behind something to work with.   soil, structures, society, kindness.art. receipes

so i try to live in a way that takes little and leaves way more than i started with.

fh

KugsCheese's picture
KugsCheese
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 2 2010
Posts: 731
Behind and Ahead

Does anyone remember Ross Perot's 3rd party?  That was the best chance and the powers that be killed it.  I just don't see the legislative process correcting the problems that they created.  A big correction in markets has to occur to wake people up.  But let's hope the next step is not totalitarianism.  History is not encouraging on this contemplation.

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 157
Too late

Rosehip, we are lost. We can't 3d print water, food, healthy soil. Technology isn't going to save us. As methane is released, it will change the planet in ways we can't even predict with our climate models. But we know enough to realize we are in danger. The Permian extinction event is believed to have been caused by the release of methane triggered by warming from volcanic eruptions. And it can happen quite quickly - in a matter of decades. There are planetary forces much more powerful than our ability to contain them. In our ignorance and hubris, we have tampered with the balance needed to sustain our lives. It's over, we just haven't realized it yet. We are in the midst of a sixth Great Extinction event.

Hold onto your hat, it's going to get bumpy.

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 157
Ferralhen

We aren't going to survive this. We are losing too much of the very things that sustain us. The plankton are dying, the coral reefs are dying, the forests are dying. The soil is depleted, the water is polluted and we're emptying irreplaceable aquifers. We've destroyed the ecosystem that allows us to live.

It doesn't matter what we do. There won't be anyone to appreciate what we've left behind. We are among the last humans to live on the planet. In fact, what we've set into motion could very well result in the loss of all life on the planet. Increasing temperatures are triggering feedbacks we can't alter. We're poisoning the earth and its oceans. And most people either don't even know about it or if they do, don't care. They don't really want to know. It's too much to take in.

How do we take in the knowledge that we are a dying race on a dying planet? All of our instincts want to deny that. We cling to hope - technology will save us, it's really not that bad, some of us will survive to start over, etc., etc. Nope, not going to happen.

So make your art. Plant your garden. Because it seems like the right thing to do. Because it makes you feel better, But it's not going to make a real difference in the end.

I wish it wasn't like this. I wish we'd woken up sooner. Now it's too late. So enjoy the life you have while you have it. I salute your efforts to leave more behind than you started with. Too bad more of us didn't do that when we had the chance.

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 542
Why is this time different?

Joyce,

It has been warmer than at present for longer than the present, and particularly in the arctic, at least six times in the last 4000 years. It was warmer in the last interglacial period about 110,000 years ago. Why is this time different?

Stan

Bellinghamster's picture
Bellinghamster
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2012
Posts: 16
Shhhhhh...

I got a great idea. Lets dump tons of nano-sized particulates of aluminum into the atmosphere and speed up the process. Then we will convince everyone its not happening right in front of their eyes. It should work flawlessly. Obviously someone who's someone shares your opinion jdye51. It should be crystal clear to everyone that they are scrambling. Never mind... to much to comprehend. "Ploop", head back calmly into sand. Keep calm and slave on......

ptwisewoman's picture
ptwisewoman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 18 2008
Posts: 56
Being Change Agents

Having been a change agent inside and outside organizations I will make two points that are discussed generally in the interview.  1) Different skills are needed and people must find where their passion places them, 2) Both are critical to any success.

I am heartened to find more people running for office that are willing to speak to the communication dysfunction, the malignant bought politics and the need for change that doesn't blow up what is good about our society or focuses on one person as though the bad government wasn't already rampant when he got into office.  I observe here at PP, and in the greater society, a dichotomous yammering that is status quo or fantasy world of individuals unconstrained and not a serious discussion and focus on change that is needed and how best to find compromise that moves us forward and does not unnecessarily create winners and losers or locks us into gridlock or perpetual talking at each other.  There must be hope and there must be a willingness to get down to work.  Too bad I can't vote for Ms. Williamson.

SPAM_ferralhen's picture
SPAM_ferralhen
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2009
Posts: 151
jdye51 the game aint over til

jdye51

the game aint over til the buzzer sounds.

i was a division one basketball star in the 70's.

a couple of years ago,i was sitting in the stands of one my neices basketball games. the kids were warming up. one of the players father said, oh man, the other team is so good, this is a certain defeat. i turned around and spoke to the defeated man," if i didn't think i had every chance of beating the overwhelming odds of any team, then i would never have  stepped onto the court in the first place,"

some of us are warriors. we fight on. some of us are players, not spectators. it may very well end in defeat. after losing a game, i still always felt like i had given my all and best.

at the moment, my soil has improved due to my efforts, and i am learning to clean my water naturally. and i have planted over 250 trees on my property. i have a fallout shelter. an outdoor kitchen. among ,many other efforts 

.both my parents have survived stage 2 and 4 cancer...i would think i have good genes.

not everyone died in the 1918 flu epidemic. not everyone in hiroshima died at ground zero. not everyone at fukushima has died. some had the sense to move.

yes many have and many more will.

the task of those of us alive is to fight on, make the earth a better place, and to leave the next generation a step up.intelligent people do this. and many are.

i knew when i was 5 that one day i would die. i didn't throw up my hands and quit. i looked fwd to the day i would one day be 10!

i agree the situation looks grim, and most likely fatal. and i believe hope is no different than wishful thinking. i don't subscrib to it. but.....

i am not clinging on to any specific solution or hope. i am fighting for my very life.and for  those that follow me. whether it in the end make a different i don't know, but i do know i solder on everyday i wake up to.

jdye51's picture
jdye51
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 157
I have no desire to try to

I have no desire to try to convince anyone of NTE. Based on what I know to be true, I believe it will happen, barring extraordinary intervention. So I'm not interested in discussing the fine points of climate change, Stan. I know your position on it.

Ferralhen, I salute your warrior spirit. We are each meeting our futures in ways that make sense to us and that reflect our unique presence in the world. I'm not advocating just rolling over and dying. In fact, I believe this is an opportunity to be even more alive. Some people who have been given a terminal diagnosis say they never felt more alive. They gave themselves permission to strip away the extraneous from their lives and live them more fully.

There's no right way to live or die. As Sandy Puppy pointed out, we are all going to die at some point. The difference I see here is that it is a collective dying. A gradual loss of the web that supports our existence. The creatures and plants that we look to for our food, the air we breathe, the waters that slake our thirst, are all disappearing at a rapid rate. We live in a fairly narrow band of habitability. We can adapt up to a point, then we will be overcome when the planet can no longer support the specific conditions we require. Species come and go. We're no different.

On a spiritual note, I believe we are spiritual beings having a physical experience. So my grief at our demise is tempered by the thought that there is no real death of consciousness. The body falls away but we go on. I think existence is so much larger than we can imagine. We might not get it right on this planet, but that's not to say we won't somewhere else in another life within physicality or even on another plane of existence. It's all about our journey home to the one Source of all being.

These are my thoughts/feelings/beliefs. They may not be yours. I respect that. I offer them for your consideration.

Best wishes to all in the year ahead.

RogerA's picture
RogerA
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2009
Posts: 106
Not a revolution but an evolutionary movement

Just like the Fabian Society and Frankfurt school. (the logo of the FS was/is a wolf in sheepskin)
You know the connections, FS > SDS ( students for a democratic society) > Weather underground > Bill Ayers > White house today.

Frankfurt school > Herbert Marcuse (the theorist of the students movements back in the days and behind the phrase "make love not war") > Political correctness/ cultural marxism > multi culturalism > education and media.

Also we have a Willi Muenzenberg who stated "we will make the west so corrupt it stinks".
See Antonio Gramsci and his plan for taking it down from the inside, (by some seen as the biggest troublemaker in history).
Cloward-Piven strategy (basically to overload the system by getting as many as possible on welfare and milk it to a crash).

I am not saying she is connected to any of this but when anybody makes statements like that...

I am not aware of any real peoples movement who has not been a front, coopted or infiltrated. The french revolution was not by the french people, the october revolution(in the west often called the russian revolution) was not by the russian people. Infact among others 90.000 revolutionaries was shipped from New York to russia. As mentioned above the peace and students movement of the 60s, the hippies, the new age movement. None of this was by the people as we think of it. Martin Luther King was infiltrated. On and on it goes. And history repeats, wonder why. (Did you know Trotsky used to play chess with baron Rothschild).

When did you (USA) go from a republic to democracy, are we here seeing another evolution.

I do not understand the way Lincoln is held in such reverence.
Upon taking office Lincoln implemented series of unconstitutional acts. Launching invasion of the south without consulting congress, declaring martial law, blockading the southern ports, suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration. Imprisoning without trials thousands of northern citizen, arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him, censoring all telegraph communication, creating new states without the consent of the citizen of those states, ordering federal troops to interfere with elections in the north by intimidating democratic voters. Deporting a member of congress, Clement L Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing the administrations income tax at a democratic party rally, confiscating private property, confiscating firearms.
The socalled civil war was rather a war for southern independence. Established by the declaration of independence, carried forward by the articles of confederation, and protected by both the US constitution and the bill of rights, secession was perfectly legal in the 1860s. So the Confederacy was a legally formed nation, Lincolns war illegal and Lincoln a war criminal. President Davis was never brought to trial, even though he actually requested one. The US government itself asked three different prosecuting attorneys to try him. All refused, deeming the case unwinnable. A public trial would have allowed the south to prove the legality of secession and expose the many illegalities of Lincolns war.
The north could not survive without the south because the south had all the resources. Any similarity to today? Start a war to spread democracy and free people and as a bonus we get control of the resources.
But he held good speeches.

She is comparing people and government with children and parents and I agree. But do we want to replace our parents with a new set or is it time to grow up. Maybe we find the parents are more dependent on the children than the other way around because that is the only thing the parents have in common, the children. What is interesting if you go back in the unknown history of how children were treated you will find much that can be applied to government/citizens.

If you want to go down this route and join a movement I recommend you familiarize yourself with the delphi technique.

Hladini's picture
Hladini
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2011
Posts: 60
Not Much Difference in Law Enforcement

Really appreciated this interview.  The problems we are facing are sooooo big, they have to be attacked from every angle.  As individuals wake up, as families, friends, and communities organize, more and more elections will be won by similar minded candidates.  I wish Marianne well and will consider supporting her candidacy.

I disagreed with a few comments, though.  Marianne seems to think that law enforcement presence 30-40-50 years ago was not as ominous as it is today.   It was, and it's still happening.   Mysterious deaths, outright assassinations, group infiltration, excessive and deadly force used by law enforcement, use of dogs, arrests, criminal charges........ it's never really stopped..... unless unrest died down.

I like the comment made by darbikrash regarding the moderate's influence on the abolitionist movement.  I disagree with Chris that we need more compromise in Washington.  When the National Defense Authorization Act, which just happens to fund our military, includes sections on indefinate detention of U.S. citizens, then I say trash the entire bill.   Remember to vote NO means the military does not receive funding........ so is the compromise to vote for the bill anyway - even with the indefinate detention clause?  I think the "moderates" had a lot to do with our present governmental dysfunction.  The moderates played a role in HItler gaining power.   We could use the same analogy with the appointment of Yellen.  Should the extreme right (Rand Paul) be able to use the filibuster to block her nomination against 75% of the Senate or should he compromise?

When I take stock of all of our national ills: lousy public news sources, lousy educations, lousy diet, lousy agricultural policies, lousy personal health, lousy wages, lousy monetary policies, lousy foreign relations policies........ it all comes back to some mega, national or transnational corporation.  Personally,  I think the time for compromise has passed. 

I disagree with Jdye51's conclusion that all is lost.  A lot will be lost, but not all.  I have seen climates restored with the proper re-planting of forests - in short order.   More and more people are waking up, more and more people are modifying their behaviors, more and more people are returning to the land and with a healthy respect,  I see positive change happening. 

If enough of us un-plug from the corporatocracy, then maybe we'll just starve the beast(s). 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 520
Marianne Williamson on Denial

Marianne Williamson's facebook post from yesterday is a very unusual statement from a spiritually oriented person:

"America's main problem is not an economic one; it is not even a political one. It is a psychological one. We the American people are in denial about the condition of our own democracy. NSA spying, the National Defense Authorization Act (allowing indefinite detention of American citizens), the militarization of our local police, as well as the drones that are headed to all of our skies... these things point in a direction almost too awful to admit to ourselves. But admit it we will, or the trend will continue. I dedicate my Congressional campaign to the process of real national healing, which will only come about as we both look at the things that are truly wrong and embrace the work that it will take to correct them. 

This PP.com group is quite unusual in that we are looking at the impact of the 3E's and seeing some real problems on the horizon.  And we are facing this, and doing our own inner work, seeking some sort of creative and constructive response in accordance with our deepest values.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2793
It is unusual

but needs to be said.  Speaking truth like that she will never be elected.

livsez's picture
livsez
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2008
Posts: 68
Unusual but

Marianne has a very large and loyal following in So Cal that has been with her for decades and continues to grow.  I believe it is possible for her to get elected in her district.

John Lemieux's picture
John Lemieux
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2012
Posts: 226
It's interesting and exciting nevertheless

Maybe she won't get elected,  but I'm pleased and excited by her participation nevertheless. J.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 675
On the other hand

On the other hand, maybe TPTB will not let us turn the tide without violence.  Maybe it's THEY who will initiate violence when they see their power ebbing away in the face of a growing voluntary movement. Maybe.  Maybe not.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1911-violence-in-the-face-of-tyranny-...

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1627
Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2793
agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 734
A Course in Mackerals'

I would dearly love to see Ms Williamson write a new book about spirituality and the Eco-sphere, with special focus on the oceans. She could call it, 'A Course in Mackerals'

And...I am actually quite serious about the title. It would attract attention. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments