"The Inviolability of History"

The second of the five broad ideals of the FoWL manifesto speaks of "the inviolability of history." 

What do they mean by "the inviolability of history"  What it seems to mean to me is that history is history. Perhaps there is a hint of a hope that the men who hold it are honest. What is your guess?

Hard to join up with an outfit the members of which speak in a way so difficult for me to understand.

FoWL

FoWL is an organization begun by persons interested in WikiLeaks. I am not a member, but I do tend to check into it?

I am asking for your comments and critiques. Please enter them below.

I'm just taking my first look at FoWL information. I have printed out a  page from the web. It's title is "Join FoWL."  Subtitles are "How is FoWL different?" and "Why FoWL?"

The organizations stated purpose looks to be "... build a mass global movement." Nearly their first words are, "Your privacy is our core concern." Oh, FoWL stands for Friends of WikiLeaks.

I'll begin with the "manifesto." It's divided into two parts. The first part is is a brief statement of five ideals. The first "ideal" on the list is the longest.. I'll write it out just below:
"1. The right to communicate, including the right to speak, and the right to listen, the freedom of thought, the right to communicate privately, and the right to communicate anonymously."

The writing and punctuation seems awkward., but I think that I understand what they intend to say. I suspect that I may agree with that which I imagine they have intended.

I claim and support the right to communicate, speak, and listen. Freedom of thought sounds right too. I know that I don't want anyone messing with my mind.
"The right to communicate privately," sounds right. Keeping the whispers and writings between my lady friend and me seems fair. If my younger brother tells me in confidence that he intends to vote Republican and has had me agree not to tell my older brother, that is fair too, isn't it?
We have long agreed that a private letter or or phone conversation ought to be private.

I seem to have some reservations about communicating anonymously that I don't completely understand. One thing I am certain of, I need to identify a person with whom I am conversing. According to the FoWL literature; if I join FoWL, I will be communicating directly with as many as a dozen persons. If one of them, say, sends me an email saying one thing and later sends my another email say that which seems to contradict the earlier message,  I want to be able to say, "Now wait a minute Mr X, you said such and such in a message in an earlier message, but in this recent message you say such and such; I see a contradiction, don't you?"  I don't need to know that according to his mother and father his name is Ben Franklin, but I do need to know that the same person wrote those two messages. I need to get to know Mr. X.

On the other hand if you want your comment  below to be anonymous. I am fine with that.

To be continued:

Citizenship Foundation - Giving Nation

Citizenship Foundation - Giving Nation

There is always something you can do.

Would you teach citizen organization?

Start young. Start now. Start here.

What would you do?

CalRTA

Interests of the California Retired teachers Association have included:

~  Educating CalRTA membership and the public about the facts related to CalRTA

~Improving communication within the organization and between its leadership and members.

~ Co-operation with similar organizations

These interests seem worthy.

Old and Slow

A short couple of months before OWS two young acquaintances suggested starting a 'movement.' I started drafting a post of that experience then. I just ran across that start. Thought that it might still be worth 'finishing' and posting.

I told them that I didn't know what they meant by 'movement.' It seemed that they weren't very clear about it either. Though perhaps in their own minds they were clear enough.

I told them that I was willing to talk with them, but they wanted more than 'talk.'

They reminded me that I had mentioned 'organizing' as something useful. I told them to go organize. They asked me how. I suggested that the try 'talking.' They were tired of talk and wanted something more than talk. Also, they were not sure what I meant by 'talk.' I told them that if the wanted, I would help them learn more about effective talk. They had experience with talk and were interested in doing something other than talk.

I was perhaps I was doing more telling than was supportive of good talk. So, I told them that doing was okay with me. They said that they wanted to do organization. Organization seemed  big medicine to them and they wanted help in using that powerful magic.

I mentioned that organization was most often for an objective. They mentioned making things better; things like politics, economics, society, and like that. I said that betterment of those things seemed a grand objective, perhaps too grand.

I then called their attention to the fact that I seem pretty disorganized to some. I told them that I didn't have a family of my own (a pretty traditional organization); that I didn't belong to any organization; that I didn't have a job; that I was no longer the member of a political party.

That took them back a bit.

I told them that I intended to avoid taking part in any organization, movement, or group, that didn't include a lot of ongoing talk.

"Talk about what?" they asked.

"Everything" I answered a bit extravagantly.

Them: Be more specific.

me: Values, assumptions, dialogue skills, clarification of meanings.

Them: We want more than talk.

me: okay.

them: We want you to help.

me: I'll try to help by talking.

them: Okay we are talking.

me: What do you value?

them: Freedom, justice, fairness.

me: What's valuable about freedom?

them: This seems more like interrogation than talk.

me: I just want to understand what we are talking about.

them: A Movement. Freedom to have a movement.

me: I've had two already today, both satisfying.

them: That's a lot of shit.

me; I value shit and assume that it is important to you. Okay, I might consider doing something with you, but it must include a lot of dialogue as I have mentioned. There are other things that I would probably insist on, like no violence and no leaders.

them: can your dialogue and two 'nos' make a movement?

me: I don't think so. Think about it. It might be a start.

them; See you later, maybe.

me: Bye.

Organization for Living: or is more than London Bridge falling down?

This might be considered a sort of meditation.

We are interested in helping our youth, our children, grandchildren and posterity, to live and thrive in the world.

Changes in the world sometimes seem fearsome.

Sometimes organizations seem too big. Sometimes we see ourselves as lost in a nation state, more than  as being protected by it. At other times we see the power and structure of the state as failing. We may feel that great institutions such as large corporations, churches, NGOs, and the UN may be supplanting the nation state.

I have asked myself if we are not now seeing the beginning of the end of the the nation state. Sometimes I see the ending of the nation state as a powerful trend unlikely to be stopped by anything men will do.

Change is.

Man does not live alone. Men, women, and children need one another and tend to cleave to each other. What man do you know who can get a church, or a pencil, by himself?

We want our space and freedom. Still, we live best in circles of others. A country or nation is helpful as are other large organizations, but we most helped by more comfortable smaller groups, organizations, and systems  around us. The family, nuclear and extended, has proved to be a strong and lasting support which we feel fairly capable of maintaining. Clans and tribes have been of great help. The small town and village has been helpful too. We have also know the support of certain congregations and clubs.

Large cities have been of sustaining support. However, even for those of us who found the cover of the city freeing, have still found the group in which our name and face is known a source of comfort. I am reminded of the TV program "where everyone knows your name."

We have seen great social structures of man fall in what seems the twinkling of an eye. The Berlin wall falls. The soviet union falls. A church is flooded and the congregation does not return. A woman turns to drugs, a man turns away, and a family is gone. There are a couple of long distance movers or a single war and an extended family is lost. We forget the structure of clan or tribe and clan and tribe are no more.

May not our children's children benefit from being taught how to cooperate to build or rebuild needed structure around themselves?

What do we know about reestablishing an appropriately structured and functioning peer group, congregation, tribe, clan, support group, extended family? What do we know about establishing a supportive group of individuals loyal enough to one another? How do we go about forming a group which can keep us informed, help us to gather information? What do we know gathering a group able to warn us of danger, who can be relied upon to tell us were the job is, where a good pair of shoes can be bought, the better candidate found, help us to locate a good mate?

You know a great deal and I know something too. We could gather and organize what we know to better inform those who follow us.

Who is responsible for teaching the children,

Democratic Meaning

YouTube - Sheldon Wolin cont.

When I say learn about union and organization I don't suggest that you join a union.

Men

Men who have worked for a pension should not have to sue to get it.
Neither should the government have to sue for them.
Arrangements should be made so that they get their pension in all cases excepting the end of the Earth.
Why haven't men used their collective bargaining rights and their voting rights to do that?
They have used their skills on behalf of their employers and on their need to earn their daily bread.
Why haven't they used their citizenship skills to claim their rights?
Why haven't they used politics, laws, and organisation to claim their rights?
Are they waiting for their children to take up arms?

Nothing Personal

Your Congressman knows little about what you think unless you explain it to him. He is likely to care little about what you think unless he is well acquainted with how you support him. Your support counts for little unless you are very rich or very effective in your organization.

Organization

I find that people I know quite well or not sure about what I have meant by organization. Well, I have meant a great deal. Most of what I have meant is in close accord with what you will find in your dictionary. Mostly I have been talking about social organization on a fairly intimate level. If you are super interested you might check 'social organizaion' in an encyclopedia.

As a beginning, and perhaps an end and middle too, the organization I have been posting about may consist entirely of an ongoing dialogue on topics of high interests to all participants. Topics may change but there is much continuity of participants.

There are a  couple of tendencies in organization style. One may be characterized as vertical and the other as horizontal. The organization I have been talking about tends to the horizontal. You may be more familiar with the those organizations tending to the vertical. Your work-place may well be an example of a vertical organization. Most states are organized vertically. The vertical organization is more hierarchical; the horizontal less.

An example of horizontal organization might be a group of founding fathers in a tavern offering each other their opinions and assumptions about King George. Another might be a 12 Step meeting; another an early meeting of the Knights of Labor.

Hope this helps.
You might benefit by taking a look at my Magic Table blog before I delete it

Wealth and Resources

I imagine that you have some interest in wealth and resources. You probably have some questions about them. I do. Some of them may be similar to yours. Some the the questions that I have about public wealth and resources are listed below:
~ What are the wealth and resources in the U.S.?
~ What wealth and resources are fairly available to you and me?
~ Which parts of wealth and resources have not been monetized?
~ What percentage of U.S. wealth and resources are in the hands of the richest 10% of us? How much more do you want to let them have?
~ Is information a valuable resource? Where is a trustworthy source?
~ Which are the main resources in the U.S.? Who controls them?
~ Is blood a resource? Is life? Is sweat? Is time?
~ Are cooperation and organization resources?
~ What does cooperation have to do with wealth?
~ What questions do you have? What answers?

In Common

There are similarities among republics, political parties, unions, etc. They are meant to be mutual benefit organizations. The are expected to have, as central to their being, a democratic process which provides for participation of, and control by their members. Another set of similarities they have in common is the ways in which they displease publics and lose memembers, I list much of that set below:
~ movement toward oligarchic control,
~ displacement of prime beneficiaries,
~ goal displacement,
~ means which are perceived as illegitimate.
~ low level of participation,
~ leaders retaining and extending their power,
~ military or police power tending to dominate,
~ original objectives lost sight of,
~ lack of understanding of goals of organization by its members or publics.

In which organization you know have you noted such tendencies?