[Sosfbay-discuss] "Dare to Win"

[Christian Pecaut]

Cameron and Gerry,

Appearances don't matter.  It's all about ideology.

Either you,

serve the more powerful and their interests, first and foremost -
[CONSERVATIVE]

or whether you

are first loyal to more vulnerable, first and foremost - [PROGRESSIVE].

In the current context,

the CONSERVATIVE candidates will be helped into power by the big money
powers and their connections in the media / voting machine industry.

These same big money powers KNOW who can be relied upon to serve their
interests, and KNOW who will remain loyal to the less powerful and
most vulnerable.

The Democrats that are helped into power by these big money powers are
the ones who can most cleverly _appear_ PROGRESSIVE, while remaining
loyal to the big money powers, first and foremost.

The more clever, subtle, and convincing that the _actually_
CONSERVATIVE, but _apparently_ PROGRESSIVE candidate can be, the more
help they will receive from the media, the corporate paymasters, and
dirty tricksters.

Almost no Greens are allowed into higher office because they CANNOT be
relied on to provide PROGRESSIVE _appearances_ to _actually_
CONSERVATIVE actions.

Once the big money manipulators succeed in filling the Green Party
with _fake_ PROGRESSIVES, then they will start winning elections
faster than Democrats.

The veneer of PROGRESSIVE politics, with overall CONSERVATIVE loyalty,
doesn't shine as convincingly as it did prior to Katrina, Iraq, or
9/11.

The 'Safe States' hoax was the Big Lie aimed at the Green Party, just
like the 'Al Qaeda'  hoax was the Big Lie aimed at the Democrats who
could not be relied on to stay loyal to the big bullies in power.

It is media manipulation and voter fraud, carried out on the orders of
the big money interests, that determine who wins and loses elections
nowadays.

You can see that appearances are NOT decisive, because no matter how
nice you make your hair or your website, if you threaten to expose the
harmful and deceptive activity of the biggest money powers, you will
be THWARTED, one way or the other by their henchmen.

It's the ruling powers that call the shots -- and _how much_
PROGRESSIVE politics they PERMIT has been narrowing, more and more.

The perception that _apperances_ determine elections is deliberately
encouraged and enforced by the same big media money men, of course.

If we succeed in teaching Green and Democrats this decisive,
IDEOLOGICAL distinction, between, first loyalty to the most powerful
(CONSERVATIVE), and first loyalty the the most vulnerble
(PROGRESSIVE), then we will win, no matter what manipulations the big
bad guys pull.

Ideological distinctions are forbidden from overt discussion in the media.

Which makes sense, because with an accurate political 'measuring
stick' generally understood by the population, then media
manipulations would no longer work.

The closer I look, the LESS appearances matter.

Getting us to spend all our time projecting our image, rather than
refining the political intelligence of our party and populace, is fine
with the big media, spy, and money boys.

Spin and manipulating appearances is the heart of their job description.

Get the ideas right, along with an intelligent analysis of the overall
political context, then come what may at the ballot box, you and all
you have reached with your campaign will be that much more hip to what
is real.

TRUST is the same as appearances.

TRUST is all about believing in someone.

Straight, overt ideological distinctions, that can be made by ANYONE
with the capabilities of the own brains, do not rely on TRUST at all.

Sure, you can rely on the judgment of someone who consistently, over
time, shows that they are PROGRESSIVE through accurate political
analysis and actions -- we all do that all the time.

Unless eveyone is constantly checking, with their own brains, what and
who accurately represents their intentions and understanding, then
TRUST is wafer-thin and vulnerable to any and all media manipulations
that come down from above.

Creating a solution to the manipulability of the general population is
even more difficult than 'filtering out what we see and read', because
the DECISIVE manipulations are specifically designed to influence
people's judgments outside the realm of conscious evaluation.

And only by creating such a solution, will our PROGRESSIVE goals of
helping the most vulnerable be attained -- however the elections go,
and no matter how much worse the overall political context becomes.

Christian Pecaut