cj#273> re: Generation X & NWO


Richard Moore

Dear CJ,

Things have been busy here in downtown Wexford, so haven't had time to
attend to the journal.  Hope you've all been well.  I have been receiving
some challenging letters from people about New World Order postings.  One
fellow accused me of being so old-fashioned as to be irrelevant.  I asked
him to tell me what he meant, and he sent back a passionate message about
Generation X.

Here's my response to that letter.  Hope it is of interest and leads to
some useful discussion here.  Keith is on the Bcc line, to protect his
identity, since he didn't write to me for publication.



Dear Keith,

Sorry to be so long in getting back, spent the weekend in Cavan speaking at
rural develpment conference.  Lots of very involved young people here in
Ireland, although there are lots of disillusioned ones as well.

You bring up important truths about the beliefs and attitudes of Generation
X.  I'm happy to respond to that.

It so happens that last week I showed my article to to a couple of young
Brit travellers I ran into here in Wexford.  You couldn't find anyone more
disaffected by the system, or more eager to be outside of it.  They were
positively proud of their living outside, not being part, not participating
in the great sham, the great rip-off.  They see themselves as using few
resources, being in harmony with nature, not paying taxes, etc.

I'm not claiming they're a "typical case" and that their response proves
anything, but it's interesting nonetheless.  They said they basically
agreed with what I was saying (in Common Sense & NWO), and that it _is_
worth saying to young people, but that the language was totally beyond
them.  It so happens that most of my dialog is with the over-educated
Internet community, and it is all too easy to fall into long sentences and
multi-syllable words -- it's easier to write that way.  But it wasn't until
I was reading over some my article in their dimly lit caravan that I
realized how difficult it would be to read for many people.  As Tony put
it: "If I really try, and if I have a dictionary, I can figure out a
sentence at a time.  Then I find out I agree.  But I could never get
through the whole thing."

So one aspect of reaching Generation X comes down simply to vocabulary and
writing style.  I know that isn't what you were getting at, but it's part
of that picture.

>The reason why I say you are old-fashioned is that you are using the
>language of the traditional political system. That's gone.

Well, it may be, soon.  It's not quite gone yet, though it's committing
suicide at a rapid rate.  Part of that particular problem, as I see it, is
that lots of people are cooperating in its demise because they've been
seduced by the anti-democracy propaganda, and actually believe a brave new
world awaits them on the other side of politics.  It is really to those
people I've been addressing my writing.

To those who simply despair, I haven't really tried to address myself.
Perhaps I should.  There's more ground to be covered if one wants to reach
that audience.

In learning how to express myself, it has seemed prudent to try first to
address those who I've got some common ground with -- those who have a
memory of the system working with some degree of success.  If I can't even
get through to them effectively, how could I get through to others?

If I do try to reach the despairing, I'm not going to shift the ground I'm
standing on (though I'd say different things), unless I learn something
quite new -- which I'm always open to.  It is still clear to me that
political democracy is the only workable paradigm on offer.  If you strip
away the hype and lies about free trade, competitiveness, and the promised
new prosperity, the truth that remains (in that possible future) is facism,
poverty, warfare, and environmental disaster -- a new Dark Ages.  If you
want to get into your ideas about consumer power, I'd be quite happy to
hear them.  I've been there, done that, and have the T-Shirt, but I'm not
closed-minded about it, and would welcome rays of hope from any quarter.

If I were in Germany in the 30's, I would see my only option as opposing
Hitler, even if it were a losing battle.  Looking for a solution under
fascism wouldn't be an option I'd want to devote myself to.  Of course in
that case, I could presumably get out while still alive, whereas in the
current situation, there's no where to run to.

>The young people he refers to are not ever going to
>join the political system, nor ever mobilise under the G99 or in that silly
>organisation TOES with its unrealistic economic ideas. They're far too
>sophisticated for that.

Sophisticated?  If you believe that, then we're talking about your beliefs,
not theirs.  Do you think there's no point in participating politically?
History shows us examples of when the poltical system was just as corrupt,
and just as much under the thumb of elites, and people were able to
organize sufficiently to make a difference, and to turn back the tide of
elite domination, at least for a time.  I wish you'd stop referring to the
alleged beliefs of GenX on this one, and say how _you_ come to use "silly",
"unrealistic", and "sophisticated" in the ways you do.

I think anyone -- regardless of age group -- is likely to
participate/mobilise under unexpected banners, if and when they see hope in
doing so.  That's a matter of education.

>The intelligent ones among them know what's going
>on. They are never going to listen to you. You've got to be far more radical
>than you are so far. I don't criticise you for not being radical because
>I've got no answers either. But at least you should be thinking much harder
>if you're making claims to analyse the situation.

More radical?  Is radical itself a virtue?  I think it's important to get
to the root of the problem, which is the actual meaning of radical.  Simply
being strange and novel sounds radical, but it isn't.  I wonder what _you_
mean by radical.

>With great respect, you're like the drunk who comes home and drops his front
>door key in the porch. Because it's dark he goes down the road to look for
>it under the light of the lamp-post.

I do appreciate your respect, shown really by the time you take to write,
even more than your polite words.  I also appreciate your humility in
saying you don't have all the answers.  Despite the assertiveness I try to
achieve in expressing certain ideas, I too don't claim to have all the
answers, not by any means.  But there is a core of insights which I think
are valid and which I think need to be perceived before "we" can get on to
the real business of making a difference.

How ironic that you bring up the story of the keys and lamppost.  I've long
been familiar with the story and think about it a lot.  I came across it in
a Sufi collection as a Narudin story.

As with all parables and aphorisms, the truth is in the application.  I'm
not sure how you're applying it.  I see it as applying this way...

The "key" is the truth about our political situation, and the "correct" use
of our influence to better our lives.  The "lamppost" is the easy language
of today's dominant propaganda -- the virtue of free trade and the evils of
government and taxation.  "Nasrudin" (the drunk) is the one who wants to
speak to society and help improve things.  The lesson of the story -- in
this interpretation -- is that no benefit is to be gained from adopting
that popular language and viewpoint, although one could succeed in getting
articles published.

>According to the Demos paper, part of the reason appears to be a feeling
>that they are living in a society which seems to be focussed on the needs of
>ageing baby-boomers. This creates an inevitable tension that could turn into
>a destructive "intergenerational conflict over politics and resources".

Well yes, this is the propaganda they've been fed.  Back in the sixties the
generations were also turned against one another through lies.  In both
cases, it's my generation that was the butt of the propaganda.  Then we
(the anti-war movement) were portrayed as disloyal, irresponsible, and
afraid to stand up to the commies -- when in fact we were motivated by
justice and people's right to national self-determination.  The lies were
totally cynical, a ruse to keep the war going, there was no principle
behind them.

Today we're portrayed as you describe above.  Again there's no principle
behind the lies, there's no desire by the establishment (those who run
things) to better the lives of young people.  What there is, is a desire to
back out of social security and medicare programs.  I've paid lots more
into social security than I'll ever get out (even if the program
continues).  It was supposed to be a fund that was invested at interest to
be self paying.  So the establishment looted it, spending it on current
expenses, probably a lot of it during the Vietnam era.  It ate it's cake
then, and it wants to have it now as well.

But again, I don't know whether your quoting this stuff because you believe
it, or because you want to make clear how deceived Generation X is.

>According to research by the Henley Centre, the forecasting group, people in
>their 20s are financially worse off than previous generations and face
>declining real incomes. "If I were in their shoes," admits Mr Barrie
>Morgans, the cheif executiver of IBM UK, "I'd feel betrayed."

Indeed they're betrayed, as are all of us.  The concious decision was made
to cease pursuing prosperity in First-World countries as the means to
achieve economic growth.  We were lucky in the fifties and sixties because
the establishment thinking was the other way -- they encouraged prosperity
and we all had jobs.  Then they decided they could make more profits by
shifting more exploitation and below-subsistence jobs to the Third World.

This is why we're all in economic trouble (First & Third World, all ages).
The generations blaming one another is allowing ourselves to be manipulated
-- divide and conquer is older than Rome.

>You are obviously someone with a fine mind and great abilities, but I
>suggest you get rid of all this aggressive stuff and assumptions of
>political power and looking for conspiracies. Much of what you've written in
>"Common Sense . . ." may well be true, but it's not the main point today.
>There are other powerful trends going on which invalidate most of what
>you're writing. . . . But I don't suppose I'll be able to persuade you.

Well you might, if you'd come out and say what you want to persuade me of.
Saying "X is not the point" doesn't tell me what "Y" is.

>P.S. I have no idea what you mean by: "I don't buy into any of the
>libertarian (corporate wannabe) stuff, if that's what you mean." That's me
>being old-fashioned!

The way I see it, libertarians are deceived into thinking that corporate
deregulation is equivalent to personal freedom.  Their solution to their
perceived impotence is to identify with their oppressors.  This is what
many concentration camp inmates did.  Hence "corporate wannabes".



 Posted by Richard K. Moore (•••@••.•••) Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                            cyber-rights co-leader