Lessons on change and activism
Here’s an extremely interesting segment from “This American Life” about how change—political change and change in general—occurs [hat tip: Vanderleun].
I’ve studied change. I’ve observed it. I’ve experienced it. I’ve tried to effect it, but haven’t we all? Therapists, teachers, clergymen, friends, politicians, hairdressers, parents (and even spouses, and not just by divorce but by coercion, persuasion, ultimatum, complaint, reward, and anything else we can think of even though we’re told the effort is probably doomed).
The American Life piece contains a possible blueprint for a political activist plan for the right (commenter “Eric,” are you there?), based on what the left did in California re gay marriage and abortion. Edifying.
[NOTE: Slightly related—what does it mean to be a neocon? In my opinion, Powers is incorrect (neocons are not necessarily for military solutions, and people who are for military solutions are not necessarily neocons). But she is articulating a common use of the word “neocon.” See the category “neocon” on the right sidebar for links to my articles on the subject.]
Neo
Talking about activism & “This American Life”
What pick my attention is the new generations also our version of parent whom we can not call them parent because they only given birth of babies, grown in this world, asking state to take care of them?
Let read and think about this 10 year old kids?
Who’s fault here?
Is his mother or State?
If he became as activist what sort of activist we expecting of someone grown and produces from bad parenting.
“Neocon” is just another one of the many words and labels whose definitions are seized upon and altered by the Left. It is a key strategy in their demonization campaign. We take so few lessons from their achievements!
From the transcript:
Of course, Americans are already 70% in favor of school choice. Anyway, I’m basically skeptical that the interviewers’ “bonding” technique, which according to Ira Glass is “simultaneously intimate and manipulative and honest,” would work on issues not as personal as gay marriage and abortion.
Powers was upset when Krauthammer said about the term “neocon”: “What we have in common is all of us are Jews, but not all of us were once liberals,” but he’s right — Jewishness is central to the label. For people like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, for example, “neocon” is pretty much only applicable to Jews — see this exchange in an interview Walt had with Haaretz:
See how he separates Cheney from the term?
Caterpillar: “We take so few lessons from their achievements!”
I believe taking lessons from Left activist achievements is the point of this post.
Neo,
I’ll take a look when I have time, but for now, I’m chiming in on “what does it mean to be a neocon?”
For me, it means this:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-is-another-type-of-warfare
Transcript:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8695
On my blog, I introduced Kennedy’s speech with “President Kennedy explained the Iraq mission to West Point cadets … in 1962.”
They’re right and wrong about transsexual relationships. Since trans-orientations and behaviors do not represent a progressive condition, they can be reasonably tolerated, but there is no legitimate cause to normalize them. Ironically, trans advocates and activists use political, economic, and social shaming and bullying to prevent or discourage trans individuals from seeking treatment. They oppose principled tolerance in favor of selective exclusion, thanks in part to the selective normalization scheme of a psychiatric “consensus”.
What won the day in California for selective exclusion, was not changing minds, not rejected principles, but a trans judge who overruled a democratic and Democrat consensus.
They’re wrong about abortion. A human life evolves from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion/”planned”) death. They support the right of women to terminate unwanted or inconvenient, wholly innocent human lives. An exclusive right granted to women that they may commit premeditated murder and murder for causes other than self-defense. Their pro-choice policy is a doctrine of a degenerate (e.g. generational or progressive liberalism/libertinism) religion (i.e. moral philosophy) and debases human life generally.
More people are rejecting the fantasy (i.e. spontaneous conception/viability) and amoral/immoral (i.e. market value of human life) arguments that rationalize elective abortion in order to pursue the secular profits of wealth, pleasure, and leisure; the State’s compelling interest to secure taxable assets; and the Party’s compelling interest to pander to the pro-choice faithful. This is likely the reason for the political feminist movement’s progression from painting men as aggressive to rape/rape-rapists in order to exploit the moral ambiguous rape exception for elective abortions or planned parenthood.
They’re right about reducing criminal recidivism through productive (e.g. non-welfare) participation in society. This is a common ground for most people, including people of an atheist faith and pro-choice religion. Well, other than the high overhead income earners in the State-established welfare industry. This is also why immigration cannot exceed the rate of assimilation and integration unless the motive is to marginalize and neutralize the native population. Well, that, and the need to compensate for around 1 million (1 in 6 conceived human lives) aborted or planned Americans annually.
The lesson learned is that, principles notwithstanding, emotional appeals are effective when they do not compete with personal pursuits of wealth, pleasure, and leisure. However, when emotional arguments fail, then there is always an appeal to authority or executive action to fall back on. Pro-choice principles are very easy to adopt, but the moral hazards they create are priceless.
Savi Says:
May 2nd, 2015 at 3:20 pm
Misbehaving schoolboy, 10, is ‘arrested’ by US police after his mother asked them to ‘teach him a lesson’…
Team work works!
https://jbsanctuary.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/cant-fire-government-workers/
A dot that helps intel analysts and researchers connect otherwise disparate data points.
Another change that one would think would not have done so given their position, status, perks, etc. Pacepa is now an activist of sorts and from time to time you hear from his discourse.
today’s news… breitbart
Highest Ranking Cold War Defector: The KGB Invented ‘Liberation Theology’
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/02/highest-ranking-cold-war-defector-the-kgb-invented-liberation-theology/
Liberation theology has been generally understood to be a marriage of Marxism and Christianity. What has not been understood is that it was not the product of Christians who pursued Communism, but of Communists who pursued Christians,” Pacepa said in a recent article.
The Secret Roots of Liberation Theology
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417383/secret-roots-liberation-theology-ion-mihai-pacepa?target=author&tid=901039
History often repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing the reenactment with your own eyes.
Artfldgr Says:
May 2nd, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Highest Ranking Cold War Defector: The KGB Invented ‘Liberation Theology’…
The Memoirs of a Communist’s infiltration in to the Church
Marie Carre sounded like a complete nutcase at the time of publication….
As to activism WeirDave is on that I’ve been doing.
It works. Fun at first then move on to the next phase, which is avoidance.
Why mix with the rable, you get dirty and they like it.
Soon!
On the Cusp of an ‘African American Spring’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fitzgerald-gates-phd/on-the-cusp-of-an-african_b_7190270.html
Aghast at the sight of the Baltimore riot, I struggled for days to find meaning in what appeared senseless. I searched history for answers, discovering that what’s happening through the protests and riots of African Americans throughout the country is similar to the “Arab Spring” that occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. Are we on the cusp of an “African American Spring” akin the Arab Spring? Perhaps.
the activism in this one is so strong poop is coming out of the wrong end completely backing up…
dont believe me?
The Arab Spring was an “awakening” of long-held yearnings for equality led mainly by young, disenfranchised citizens.
uggghhh…
‘Hacktivists’ from around the world take to social media to stir Baltimore unrest. “The company’s specialty is rooting out cyber criminals lurking on social media. And when West Baltimore erupted in rioting Monday, its employees felt compelled to apply their skills. ZeroFox worked into the night tracing tweets and Facebook accounts that shared photos of looting and violence. What they found was that much of the activity was coming from well outside of Baltimore, in some cases from Russia, China, India and the Middle East.”
Why would people in those countries want to stir up unrest in the United States? . . .
Maybe the definition of neocons are changers from left to right, but they represent a certain attitude.
They seem to favor intervention because they think other people/societies can change like they did. Maybe?
In that case, it isn’t that they favor military action. That’s just one more tool in the box. It’s the willingness to intervene in order to promote change (they assume it will be positive, on net).
Why would people in those countries want to stir up unrest in the United States? . . .
I dont know. why not ask neo…
i been trying to point that stuff out G6loq, but the ringmaster doesnt seem to be interested in the deep truth, just the surface truth… the DEEP truth is we have over 70 years of operatves and paid people living in the US and you can trace some of their actions from the confessions of bela dodd and those changers we NEVER discuss (as they are well connected and part of the machine we avoid), and instead discuss typical nobodies that the world would not matter either way they went… ie. russian soldier defects, and whether he does or doesnt can mean everything inculding nuclear war… so we dont discuss that, or go into it with any detail.. david mamet, playright, could write soviet plays for 100 years or write others for twice as long and it wont man anything to us unless we want to buy a ticket to his show and find out one kind is more expensive than the others.
the cutting of the undersea cables to crippling the net and move business to a russian satelite… no real discussion..
the missile shot off the coast of california to which we were told it was a contrail, we never really got to agree it was not a contrail but a missile… note we have never mistaken one before, and have not mistaken one since, and we ignored the test of an emp device from china that was tested at that time on a cruise ship
ultimately, we are heading towards another big war
and thats just too much to talk about.
and its tin hatter to think that the soviets are orchestrating a lot of this internal conflict by any and all means… – so we are going to end up ignoring it.. though we may touch it with a sentence to make the claim we are not ignoring it..
but the one thingthat wont happen is any in depth conversation putting the parts together..
given the russian/soviets it was a given that they were part and parcel doing this. but you see, an indepth conversation would ahve the effet that otehrs would assume the same rater than argue otherwise or say otherwise.
to what extent do they do things?
we hae no idea, as we only look at the surface and try not to beleive or open up to the idea that the FSB and GRU bodies end up doing a lot given open borders and state complicity…
between the unions, leftists, privatge emails, and all that what is atually going on is a cold overthrow… a silent putsch
but after the deed is done, there wont be any more conversation… the information that should get out will never get out as the only chance of it being discussed is now, before the changes go to far…
so if you want people to know it, now is the last chances to do so… if not, then just keep bypassing it…
talking against hitgler and the nazis was possible in the lat 1920s, early 1930s… but post 1933 or 1937… that was not something that would happen. the only chance for the public to have known waht they wer elosing and then remember it to bring it back was before the hope and chance of herr furer..
think on that for a bit…
now is the only time that the key information and suxch can be disseminated. later, blogs will ahve to comply with the leadership, and so on.
n.n,
Neo is asking her readers to deliberate on the activist method, not deliberate on the merits of the particular issue. Look at the clock work, not the clock face.
Neo,
You should ask Steve Beren. His activist credentials outweigh my experience, and I’d like to see his impression and insight.
The takeaway is activism is merely sociology weaponized, as I’ve said before. Activism works because it’s tuned on people.
The Ira Glass segment sheds light on a select tool, but certainly not on the whole activist workshop of tools. It doesn’t say much about the socially oriented actions that set the stage for the individual appeals. It’s not about either/or. It’s about necessary/sufficient. Inventing the dialectical case to lay the foundation for an alternative social construct is necessary but not sufficient. Individual appeals are necessary but not sufficient.
Moving the social cultural/political We The People is less about changing persons individually against the prevailing social grain towards painstakingly building up a sufficient aggregate, although individual interactions are a tool in the workshop, than manipulating individuals by effecting change of the air of their community through flipping social nodes. We The People is a social concept we plug into – change the shape of the social outlet to change the shape of the individual plug.
Activism aims to change the shape of the social outlet. Then it pressures persons to alter their individual plug to fit the changed social outlet in order to fit into politically corrected society as acceptably socialized individuals. Stigmatize the competing social construct.
But hey, you protest, that’s not the American way – right? Tell that to the Tories who were respected, secure American British subjects one day, and hounded and chased into Canada the next day. Gay marriage wasn’t the first norm/stigma paradigm flipped by activists in our history. Our nation’s Founders were activists.
Calculate with a focus on the things that effect political culture, the Overton Window, norms, mores, and stigmas, the zeitgeist, the general will. Often, flipping C means first flipping A in order to flip B in order to flip C.
I’ve linked these two reference points before on your blog, several times, to help orient you and your readers with a beginner activist perspective.
Bill Moyer’s Doing Democracy (link), “The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements”.
Contemporary example of successful counter-Left activism: the 2000s Ivy League ROTC movement (link). Within the Ivy League ROTC movement, the most striking example is the Columbia ROTC campaign. It gained the most ground among the Ivies because it was driven by a critical mass of student-veterans who were active(-ist) on the ROTC issue within their broader campus civil-military movement.
The Ira Glass segment, the Bill Moyer model, and the Ivy League ROTC movement have in common that failure is a natural step in the process. They all talk about failure before success with failure as a constructive step.
On your blog, beyond introducing the 4 corners of the general concept and a sense of context, talking about activism won’t make your readers into activists anymore than reading your posts on ballet can make me a ballet dancer.
To move up to an advanced-beginner, intermediate activist perspective, like learning to do anything else, you have to take the leap and play the activist game in the arena in real life, get your insurgency swatted down by a superior competitor, get dirty, get scarred, but learn, get up to compete again, find out who among your fellows is a genuine activist who you can count on to compete alongside you zealously, flip social nodes and build momentum, until people are plugging into the social outlet your activist social movement has customized.
The activist game can go dormant for lack of competition, but it never concludes as long as there are, or will be, activists on the other side. The neverending social contest only evolves.
n.n: “What won the day in California for selective exclusion, was not changing minds, not rejected principles, but a trans judge who overruled a democratic and Democrat consensus.”
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
I was looking over the videos of the conflicts and you know..
where are the women offices and why arent they in riot gear, getting shot at, bottles thrown at, burned by molotov (seattle), and so on?
i bet when they look at the salaries, the women who are not there wont have made the overtime and conflict pay the men did, and we will have to give them more money for nothing cause its oppressive to do that to the poor ladies who can do everthing better.’
What the activist is doing is called conditioning the subject via a verbal conversation, thus developing a personal relationship in order to exert a personal influence.
It’s much akin to what any charismatic leader can do to their subordinates, merely by being present.
Mind control is where a person changes his mind, and he thinks he did it himself. In reality, some other puppet master was pulling his string son that matter.
While it is relatively easy for a person to become a puppet if they fall for certain influences, it is much more difficult for a patriot to attempt to take away the puppet strings of someone who is already a puppet.
You have to be better than the original puppetmaster. Are you?
Being influenced by other people, even strangers who talk to you, is something I’ve seen and done. But propagandists and those who resist the lure of authority, cannot become the subjects of their own experiments or power. If they are, they’re incompetent. They cannot become better than other puppet masters by being incompetent.
It is extremely rare to find a person who cannot be influenced by external factors.
When the Homos used burning churches and terror tactics against Prop 8 in California, that didn’t achieve desired results, other than the destruction of enemies of the state. So they did a more subtle trick, which is called mind control or aka Deception. They claimed that homo marriage would not coerce or affect the majority of Normals, that in fact the Majority of Normals are crushing the minority of homos.
As we can see, that was a mere fabrication, a deception. You’ll have the same rights as other Americans. You just won’t have a family, a life, children, or a business. You’ll be in a camp, same as other Americans.
Eric:
Steve Beren, Part I and Part II. Not that it necessarily answers the question of how he would suggest that the right go about being activist.
Neo: “the question of how … that the right go about being activist”
It’s really not complicated. The doing of activism is not at all mystical. Its constituent parts are ordinary – of the People, by the People, for the People.
The only reason the question of Right activism seems complicated is because insufficient people on the Right – in other words, short of critical mass – think foundationally as activists.
The only significant hurdle to the birth of an effective Right activist social movement is the collective adoption of the proper zealous-advocate activist mindset.
Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach encapsulates the proper activist mindset:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
If a nominal Right activist allows IRS shenanigans to actually derail his social movement, then he wasn’t a genuine activist leader to begin with.
I skirted the detailed discussion you tried to initiate about one tool, highlighted out of context, taken from the activist workshop because that’s not the place to begin.
The necessary 1st step is the full adoption of the proper activist mindset by a critical mass of Right activist leaders and at least a functional adoption of activist principles by a larger critical mass of activist operators.
Together with the 1st step, the 2nd step is picking up a starter kit of basic activist tools to begin with, eg, the Bill Moyer guide, and a sense of the activist game from a counter-Left perspective, eg, the Ivy ROTC advocacy example. You begin with a light tool box, not the whole workshop.
Starting with your basically trained team, which will change over the course of competition, the 1st applied step is wade into Teddy Roosevelt’s arena to compete for real:
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html
Most likely, you’ll make the fatal-seeming mistakes that almost all beginner activists make and superior Left activists will contemptuously swat you down. But you persevere. Gaining ground is all about try-fail-learn-try-progress-fail-learn-try.
Once you’re engaged in the arena, that’s the context where a user discussion of particular tools, like the canvassing at subject in the Ira Glass segment, properly takes place.
The demographic to begin training Right activists in earnest is not found on your blog but rather on campus, undergrad and law school students in particular.
In other words, if you want to be good at conning people like the Left, become better confidence artists than the Left’s canvassers.
I’m still referring back to the original OP by Neo, not Eric’s activist theme. In case clarification is needed.
Ymarsakar,
Pretty much.
For champions of the truth to win the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game calls on the same competitive activist demands as “conning people like the Left”. The game is the game, and it’s the only social cultural/political game there is.
For skilled activists, actual truth provides a marginal advantage in the Narrative contest, but not a fundamental, dispositive advantage. Skilled activists who play the full court to the limit of the rules (when they’re not breaking and/or remaking the rules) with a false narrative have the advantage against non-activists who trust in their true narrative but self-limit to a few comfortable plays.