DU Boothill

A fellowship of unjustly "tombstoned" DemocraticUnderground members. We use this space to talk about our feelings in reaction to the experience of first joining in the wonderful DU community and then expelled with no warning, no reason given and no response to our pleas for reinstatement. We feel this constitutes Anti-Democracy by DU Admin.

JBIE &/or another TombStoned Friend on

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

"I cannot sleep, nor eat, nor speak...all I can do is write.":JEI

Originally posted at jamboi.mydd.com on Mon. Dec. 20th, 2004
JamBoi-In-Exile: Day 4

Dr. Lilian Friedberg wrote me about having been similarly exiled by DU, and shared another point of similarity: The profound disturbance this fraudulent election has had on our personal lives.  People have questioned my non-stop personal activism on this subject and I wrote a humorous diary on this sleepless intensity. Here Friedberg accurately expresses what I've experiencing (and have gotten dinged for) very well:

"I cannot sleep, nor eat, nor speak to the ones that I love: all I can do is write. I have a bag of carrots and some bread, I nibble and chew, longing all the while just to dine, sipping fine wine beside a window to the world. Extra! Extra! Read all about it. I am writing for my life. For the life of the planet and the dignity of humanity. Your violations will be revealed and we will bring you to the most poetic justice the world has ever seen. Our good name shall be redeemed because we, too, write with GOD on our side. But ours is not the god of vengeance, it is the god of justice, of freedom, of peace. We will neither retreat, nor surrender. There will be no white flag. Not this time."



Worse than Watergate? Yep. Worse Yet: Worse than Hitler
by  Dr. Lilian Friedberg
www.OpEdNews.com



[snip]

All I can think about is you. You have invaded my mind. Occupied my consciousness. I cannot put you out of my head. You and your crimes. Soldiers dead and wounded,  murdered civilians, tortured prisoners, lives shattered throughout the world, scatter the corpses make the pile higher! And let's not forget Andrew Veal, the guy who put a bullet in his head at Ground Zero in tragic salute to your victory march--onward we march, onward pissed off soldiers, marching on to war. You have littered the planet with lies--but the bigger crime--you have done it in our name and on our dime. And now you seek to cleanup: every scrap of truth shall be destroyed. How vastly you have misunderestimated these seekers of truth. You thought you weren't leaving a trace. But in your first term, we learned to survive on the scraps, miniscule particles of justice and peace--we have become vigilant vultures, divebombing to snatch any last morsel of beauty and truth.

Then, in a flash of brilliance, one fleeting moment in time, it appeared. There was one who could not sleep through that nightmarish November night--there's something amiss here she said, and sounded the alarm! Millions have since answered the call. We have connected the dots. Performing to our utmost in a public display of persistence, pertinacity and prayer --we have said it: the banality of evil shall not prevail. Indeed we have dared to issue the Eleventh command: Thou shalt not prey upon the planet!

In those sparse moments of sanity when I come up for breath, I ask myself just how much of the American taxpayer's money you and your programmers have squandered to orchestrate this, your most catastrophically successful fiasco  to date. Were anyone to invest as much time, energy and ingenuity as it has taken to make the case against you into comparing the millions points of tragic parallel between you and Adolf Hitler, right down to that smug, self-confident smirk,  what they would find is that you surpass him by a margin of more than fifty five million to one because Hitler set out to slaughter certain sectors of the population--you want to obliterate everyone and everything. Your aim is total annihilation. Totalitarianism to the tenth degree.

I cannot sleep, nor eat, nor speak to the ones that I love: all I can do is write. I have a bag of carrots and some bread, I nibble and chew, longing all the while just to dine, sipping fine wine beside a window to the world. Extra! Extra! Read all about it. I am writing for my life. For the life of the planet and the dignity of humanity. Your violations will be revealed and we will bring you to the most poetic justice the world has ever seen. Our good name shall be redeemed because we, too, write with GOD on our side. But ours is not the god of vengeance, it is the god of justice, of freedom, of peace. We will neither retreat, nor surrender. There will be no white flag. Not this time.

It is a remarkable feat: you have succeeded in dividing this country, not merely along the lines of the Mason Dixon line, but into parallel universes. Those who know the truth, and those who believe the lies. Those who know are glued to their screens: they have gone underground, creeping and crawling, scouring these nefarious bowels to smoke out this craven scourge. Hungry for truth, starving for justice, we have found it. It is here. Indeed, in our search we have discovered it and brought it to light. The others, portent and petrified of the truth, fearing what the million points of light are sure to reveal, go about their business. They have no emails to send, no letters to write. They go to their jobs, teaching the classes, cleaning the carpets, caring for the kids and thank god that they do because otherwise the world would come to an immediate halt--would be sucked into the incendiary backdraft of all you have done.



The lines of communication have broken down: we live worlds, indeed, universes apart.


 (snip)

We know we are winning. Indeed, we have long since won. But no one up there can see it because they've buried their heads in  "conspiracy theorist" spin.



[snip]

My prayers are with you, and, as always, with this country and her people. Today I stand proud despite what you've done. Because we've made the case, and yes, we have won.

Sincerest regards,
Dr. Lilian Friedberg
Reporting from the Democratic Mandate of the United States of America

4 Comments:

Anonymous said...

DU, etc. (none / 0)

Hello Jamboi,

I'm having problems getting through to your email address. For the sake of expediency, I'm posting my response to your most recent email here, and hope this is not a violation of protocol or inappropriate (pls remember: I'm a professional writer, not a blogger, and am more or less internet and blogosphere "illiterate"):

JamBoi,

I wasn't trying to imply that David Allen is Skinner, only that Allen is obviously one of the major players at the administrative level of DU--hence, his personal, political and professional agenda clearly plays a role.

"Democracy" cannot be restored by allowing personal agendas, personal vendettas and just plain boyish envy, jealousy and vengeance to prevail.

In my view, as a Native American, there has been no TRUE sense of democracy in this country since 1492 -- and the oft-neglected fact that the US constitution was actually based on a system of government that the Iroquois Confederacy or the Iroquois League of Nations had already put in place is testimony to that. The problem is that the "foundering fathers" made some minor, but not insignificant changes to the Iroquois system of government. (I don't have time to find the best URL on that, but here is just one to start; a google search on "Iroquois" + "US constitution" produces over 9000 results--I don't have time to go through them all to find the best, most accurate, and or most useful).

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040927-32.html

According to my understanding, the Iroquois Confederacy was:

A government of the people, by the people and **FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS*.
(i.e., not of the people, by the people and for THE PEOPLE. Small, but not insignificant difference).

What is more, most of the representatives in the Iroquois Confederacy were WOMEN, as most Native communities were organized along matrilineal lines. (A devastating alteration of the original system).

Finally, the Iroquois system was one of CONSENSUS, not of "majority rules": the idea being that being, as long as you allow the "majority" to rule, the presence of a discontented, disaffected and disenfranchised "minority" is guaranteed. It's most problematic consequence is revealed when you have a situation (however fictional it may be in our current "constitutional crisis) in which the majority and the minority about equal in number. (Remember, I do not believe that this country is divided +/- 50/50. I consider the notion of a "close race" a complete fiction.) Nevertheless, the policy of "majority rules" ALWAYS and inevitably leads to ongoing and irreconcilable CONFLICT. Concensus, on the other hand, requires that all parties sit at the table long enough to reach agreements that EVERYONE can agree upon by way of compromise. This is precisely the step that DU refuses to take.

To me, as a Native American, to claim that these "foundering fathers" introduced democracy to this country represents the height of arrogance, ignorance and racist disregard for sophistication of the systems of government that prevailed in this country long before the white unsettler population came in and began the process of systematically destroying everything the First Peoples had created--in the interest of PEACE, not WAR. My people were neither "savage" nor "primitive" -- they were highly sophisticated thinkers and DO-ers (not DU-ers). And they knew how to minimize, though never to entirely eliminate, CONFLICT.

DU is just a modern-day manifestation of the same pattern of pathological destruction of everything that MIGHT someday restore true "democracy" to this country.

If we ever hope to arrive at a TRUE democracy in this country, we're going to have to look at the systems of government that were in place BEFORE the "foundering fathers" began the systematic dissemination of corruption, war, greed, envy, rugged individualism and just plain ego-mongering as "positive values" that has ultimately brought us to the "constitutional crisis" we are in.

Unless I specifially state otherwise, you are free to use any part of my emails--just properly attibrute comments to me.

Carry on.

Lilian
aka catastrophicsuccess, savetheuniverse, neversaynever and finally, villageidiot (yeah, just ignore me folks, I have nothing significant to say, I'm just a babbling idiot in the corner ;^).
by villageidiot on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 01:33:40 PM PST
[ Reply to This | ]

Re: DU, etc. (none / 0)

Hope you don't mind if I reply to your response here.

I think you are right about a lot of things. For one thing, the "founding fathers" that established the US established it as a republic, and not a democracy.

And, the paternal influence of Europe at that time corrupted not just the government of the US, but also every other "institution" such as religion.

I can see why the idea of a Consensus is very desirable, but, I do wish to point out that the population prior to 1492 was so much smaller than it is now. Today, I don't think it would be feasible (but, I sure wish it could be). For instance, who would be represented at Consensus meetings? How would we be sure that the representatives chosen were truly representative of the people they represent?

One thing, though, the idea of a "majority rules" would not be such a bad idea, and one that I think would be the best solution, if, and only if, we could guarantee that the "majority" is strong enough to withstand the bombardment of the programming media, in all it's glory.

Thank you for your comments. They have made me think.
by intelle on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 02:09:35 PM PST

2:53 PM  
Anonymous said...

guess some folks are having trouble w/ my e-mail (none / 0)

but thanks for posting it here anyway. That kinda acheives the goal anyway. :-)

I like your point about Iroquois Confederate democracy and its influence on U.S. democracy. We stole it fair and square! :-) I'm glad we borrowed from them. Wherever the idea came from its a great idea and semi workable. Not meaning to split hairs, but in its purest form democracy can not function in anything but the smallest set of people, so even w/ your example, the Iroquois were modifying it and using a republican form (ie. selecting reps to speak on behalf of the tribe), and that is just a requirement of physical reality.

For an attempt by a larger set of people to emphasize rule by consensus and consensual governance please se http://www.gp.org where on the lower right side of the page you'll find us Greens' 10 Key Values which is our party platform. In particular see # 1, 2, 5, 7,& 8. I think you'll agree that they scream for maximum inclusion in decision making and in the Green Party we really try to apply this.

Hope you'll post your own diaries here!

JamBoi

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
(snip)
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.

We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.
(snip)
by JamBoi on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 02:14:07 PM PST
[ Reply to This ]

Re: I guess some folks (none / 0)

Hey Jamboi,

I spent almost a decade living and working in Germany, where the Green Party originated, and I found a lot more "consensus-based" work going on there in left-wing politics. Learned a lot from the Germans in that regard. Also in terms of "cooperative economics" and "social market capitalism" versus the "predatory capitalism" that prevails in this country (for more on that, See William Greider: One WOrld Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism).

I think folks are missing the main points with the Iroquois league: it's not the "borrowing" that's objectionable, it's the SELECTIVE borrowing--by taking only PARTS of the system established by the Iroquois and altering significant, indeed pardigmatic or constructive elements--the foundering fathers violated the SPIRIT of the system:
the point about FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS as opposed to FOR THE PEOPLE (implying for the people who are living now and making the decisions on their own behalf) is highly significant: it determines the scope of decision-making processes. If you always base your decisions (personal, political and professional) with an eye for their long-term impact (i.e., for seven generations to come), your decisions will have a decidedly different "spirit" from those decisions made based on the way they impact one, two or three generations of people who are living in any given "now." The change in emphasis from "for future generations" to "for the people" is, imo,what has led us into the short-sightedness and historical amnesia for which this country has since become infamous: at this point, we make political decisions with an eye for their impact on the next fiscal QUARTER, for god's sake.

The consensus-based, for future generations-oriented system is flexible and can adapt to many changes over time--perhaps even to the tremendous growth in the immigrant population coupled with the tremendous decimation of the Indigenous population (from as many as 15 million to ca. 250,000 around 1850 back to ca. 3 million today) we have witnessed over the past 500 years.

What is important is that the SPIRIT of the system remain intact--and the spirit of our system was to always think and act in terms of 7-generations of impact. The task of restoring that spirit of consensus and future-oriented systems has been seriously compromised by the rampant and reckless spread of "rugged invididualism," egotism, and the "I-me-and-mine-ism" that was given particularly free rein under the Reagan administration and has exceeded the point of absurdity under the Bushel of Crooks currently squatting in office.

The notion of concensus is often misunderstood. I understand concensus to mean that everyone goes to the negotiating table knowing s/he is not going to come away from it with EVERYTHING s/he wants (that is, there is no such thing as a "non-negotiable" issue in a consensus-based system; so, for example, the Catholic claiming of abortion as a "non-negotiable" issue would not be allowed in a consensus-based system: it's an issue that must be addressed, and assuming a "no-budge" issue is simply not allowed; everyone must be willing to keep moving, however slowly, toward an agreed upon "compromise" -- you must be willing to sacrifice some marbles, you can't have it all; that is the basic agreement of the social contract, I guess). The goal is to leave the table with a compromise that everyone CAN LIVE WITH, not with some people gloating in victory and others wallowing in the despair of defeat. Any leader who need not offer any explanations for anything s/he does is also not a thing of possibility under a consensus-based system.

I cannot stress enough: majority rules is a bad idea--it always creates an discontented minority. The typical US-American response to that: tough luck, bucko, majority rules. And that's supposed to be compassionate? No, that's I-for-me, me-for-me and none-for-anyone-else-ism. It is absolutely nauseating to me to think that THIS is what my homeland has come to represent.

The point about women generally being more adept negotiators is not to be taken lightly either--especially when the whole socialization toward "gender identities" assumes a completely different form than the one/s we are most accustomed to in most of the US.

So much for my day's fifty five cents.

Lilian Friedberg, PhD
Cognitive Dissident
(aka catastrophicsuccess, savetheuniverse, neversaynever, villageidiot)
by villageidiot on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 04:07:37 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]

Re: I guess some folks (none / 0)

Lilian, this is great stuff. You really should post your own diary here at MyDD IMO. This deserves its own attention and space, don't ya think? It'll get a lot more eyes on it that way I'd think. I'll come over and comment on your diary and welcome you at mine too!! :-)

JamBoi
by JamBoi on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 04:52:18 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Re: I guess some folks (none / 0)

Ah, JamBoi, thanks...several sites have specifically asked me to go "blogging" for them, but it's a big problem for me. For one, I don't have time to figure out the technology. Also, as I keep telling myself, I MUST get back to the gainful-employment writing contracts on my desk. At the same time, the temptation (uh, I guess it's become a compulsion by now!) is too great...Anyway, I've published many of these ideas elsewhere (though always in context of whatever issue is being addressed). It's not like I'm looking for a big audience with these posts--if they reach a few people and make even one amongst them think, great.

If you feel you need to direct others to my comments, just point them out or quote from them.

If I ever do decide to take the plunge into the blogosphere for real, I'll let you know!

Until then, be on the lookout for the "blogsquatter" (that's what i'm calling what I do because I'm too lazy or too internet illiterate to actually create my own blog, I go out blogging...sorry, I'm incorrigible in that regard).

Best,

Lilian (aka....)
by villageidiot on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 05:27:14 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]

Re: I guess some folks (none / 0)

I certainly won't complain about your comments on my posts, cause it raises the value on my posts tremendously and will probably draw attention to mine. :-) Just wanted to point out that now that you've signed up here all you have to do to create your own area is simply hit the "write new Diary" button to the right of your screen, give it a title and voila! That's it. I too have been stumbling along in figuring out little by little how to use the blogs. But as long as you don't worry about perfection, you'll be just fine and you can learn new techniques as you go. I encourage you to give it a whirl since your posts are just so wonderful and worthy of attention. :-)
by JamBoi on Tue Dec 21st, 2004 at 06:46:18 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

2:57 PM  
Anonymous said...

(Moved from jamboi.mydd.com)

Jamboi, did you ever get a reply from Skinner? (none / 0)

Or any of the other Admin. If not I will post in the Ask the Admins and ask them to reply to your emails. You seem to have a very cooperative, non-confrontational tone and I think they should at least reply.
by indefatigablejoe on Thu Dec 23rd, 2004 at 12:44:27 PM PST
[ Reply to This | ]

Re: Jamboi, did you ever get a reply from Skinner? (none / 0)

Negatory indefatigablejoe. Neither did any of the other people mentioned here as having been tombstoned to my knowledge. The one that really blew my mind was geo. Of all the people he is the most polite folks I ever saw at DU, and he got the silent axe too! I think it was just because he said something nice about me. :-)
by JamBoi on Thu Dec 23rd, 2004 at 03:53:40 PM PST

2:58 PM  
Anonymous said...

(I am = blues = everywhere else.)

Great that you folks are doing this!!!

I'll post something substantive when my blood boils down a little!!!

4:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home