My purpose with this #thread
is to remove the defeatism that seems to have seized the militant souls!.

We are born btw conditions that we have not chosen.

We have not chosen our body, nor the natural environment, nor society, nor the time and space, so we were lucky or unlucky.

From there, and at some point, we have the freedom to commit suicide or continue living and to think about the conditions in which we want to do so.

We can rebel against a tyranny and succeed or die in it ...
We can fight for a cause or facilitate oppression ...

We can accept a model of life or try to modify it.

We can also be wrong in the choice.

We can believe that by accepting everything established in a society, however perverse it is, we adapt perfectly and that gives us the best living conditions, or ....

We can assume that by questioning everything, without making differences btw what is important and what is secondary, we expand our field of freedom when in reality our influence to change things diminishes in a cumulative maladjustment phenomenon.

Finally, we can prioritize action by expanding our influence in a possible direction that gives meaning to our existence.
In all cases we will have to choose btw conditions, btw needs, and we will do it according to our intention and the life plan that we propose.

Of course, the intention itself may change on such a rugged path.!!!

What will we do with our life?
We cannot ask this question in abstract but in relation to the situation in which we live and the conditions in which we want to live.

For now, we are in a society and in relation to other people and our destiny is at stake with their destiny.

If we believe that everything is fine in the present, and the personal and social future that we glimpse seems adequate, there is no other topic than to go ahead,...

perhaps with small reforms, but in the same direction.

Conversely, if we think that we live in a violent, unequal and unjust society, wounded by progressive crises that correspond to a vertiginous change in the world, we immediately reflect on the need for profound personal and

social transformations.

The global crisis affects and drags us, we lose stable references and it is increasingly difficult for us to plan our future.

The most serious thing is that we cannot carry out a coherent action for change because the old forms of struggle that ...

we were aware of have failed and because the disintegration of the social fabric prevents the mobilization of important human groups.!!!

Of course, what happens to all of us who suffer from current difficulties and intuit worsening conditions.

Nobody can or wants to move in actions destined for failure and, at the same time, nobody can continue like this.

And the worst thing is that with our inaction we are giving free passage to greater inequalities and injustices.

Forms of discrimination and abuse, which we believed were overcome, are reborn with force.

If disorientation and crisis are such, ... why could not new monstrosities whose representatives clearly say, and then demand, what should each and every one of us do, ...

.. serve even as a social reference?

These primitivisms are more possible today than ever because their elemental discourse spreads easily and reaches even those who are in a limit situation.

With more or less information, many people know that the situation is critical.

However, the option that is being followed with more and more vigor is that of dealing with one's own life, ignoring the difficulties of others and what happens in the social context.

In many cases we celebrate the objections made to the System, but we are far from trying to

change conditions.

We know that current democracy is simply formal and that it responds to the opinions of economic groups, however we wash our conscience in ridiculous votes to the majority parties because we suffer the blackmail of supporting that system or making possible the

emergence of dictatorships.

Nor do we think that the fact of voting and claiming the vote in favor of small parties can become a phenomenon of future interest, in the same way that supporting the formation of labor organizations outside the established framework can become an

important agglutination factor.

We reject the deep-rooted work in neighborhoods, in populations, in citizen sectors and in our immediate environment because we see it as too limited, but we know that this is where the recomposition of the social fabric will begin at the time of

the crisis of the centralized structures.

We prefer to attend to the game of surface, domes, notables and opinion makers instead of having a ready ear to listen to the underground demand of the people.

We protest the massive action of the media controlled by economic groups

instead of launching ourselves into influencing the small media and every gap of social communication.

And if we continue to be a member of a progressive political organization, we will fish for someone incoherent with the "media", for someone who represents our current because

it is more or less drinkable for the System's media.

Basically all this happens to us, because we believe that we are defeated and we have no other recourse than to silently knead our bitterness.

And we call that defeat "dedicating ourselves to our own lives."

Meanwhile, "our own life" accumulates contradictions and we are losing the meaning and the ability to choose the conditions in which we want to live.

In short, we do not yet conceive the possibility of a great Movement for change and bring together the most positive factors ...

...in society and, of course, disappointment prevents us from representing ourselves as protagonists of this transformation process.!!!

We must choose the conditions in which we want to live.

If we act against our life project we will not escape the contradiction that will ...

place us at the mercy of a long chain of accidents.

In this direction, what will be the brake that we can apply to the events of our own lives?

Only that of immediate interests. Thus, we can imagine numerous limit situations from which we will try to leave sacrificing all

value and all sense because our primary will be the immediate benefit.

To avoid difficulties, we will try to avoid any commitment that brings us closer to the limit situation, but it must happen that the same events will put us in positions that we will not have chosen.

No special subtlety is required to understand what will happen to those closest to us if they share the same position.

Why should they not choose against us if they are moved by the same immediacy?

Why should not a whole society take the same direction?

There would be no limit to arbitrariness and unjustified power would expire, it would do so with overt violence if it encountered resistance, and if it did not, the persuasion of unsustainable values ​​to which we would have to adhere as justification would suffice, ...

experiencing in our hearts the meaninglessness of life.

Then the dehumanization of Earth would have triumphed.

Choosing a life project btw imposed conditions is far from being a simple animal reflection.

On the contrary, it is the essential characteristic of the human being.

If we eliminate what defines it, we will stop its history and we will be able to wait for the advance of the destruction, in each step that is taken.

If the right to choose a life project and an ideal of society is deposed, we will find caricatures of Law, value and meaning.

If such is the situation, what can we sustain against all the neurosis and overflow that we begin to experience around us? ... Each of us will see what he does with his life, but also each one must keep in mind that his actions will go beyond himself and this will be so from

the least to the greatest capacity for influence.

Unitive actions, with meaning, or contradictory actions dictated by immediacy, are inescapable in any situation in which the direction of life is compromised.

Some common flaws!!
Any person committed to joint action, anyone who

acts with others in achieving meaningful social goals, must be clear about many flaws that in the past ruined the best causes.

Ridiculous Machiavellianisms, personalisms above the task proclaimed as a whole & authoritarianisms of all kinds, fill the history books & our personal

memory.

With what right is a doctrine, a formulation of actions, a human organization used, displacing the priorities that they express?

By what right do we present to others an objective and a destiny if later we place as a primary value a supposed success or a supposed ...

need for the situation?

What would be the difference with the pragmatism that we say to repudiate?

Where would be the coherence btw what we think, feel and do? .

The instructors of all time have carried out the basic moral swindle of presenting to others a future

mobilizing image, keeping for themselves an image of immediate success.

If the intention agreed with others is sacrificed, the door is opened to any betrayal negotiated with the side that is said to be fighting.

And, in that case, such indecency is justified with a...

supposed "need" that has been hidden in the initial approach.

It is clear that we are not talking about the change in conditions and tactics in which everyone who participates understands the relationship between them and the stated mobilizing objective.

Nor are we referring to the errors of appreciation that can be made in concrete implementations.

We are observing the immorality that distorts the intentions and to which it is essential to be alert.

It is important to be attentive to ourselves and to clarify others so that

they know in advance that by breaking their commitments our hands are as free as theirs.

Certainly, there are different types of tricks in the use of people and that there is no way to make a complete catalog.

Nor is it the case of becoming "moral censors" because we well know

that behind this attitude is the repressive conscience whose objective is to sabotage all actions that it does not control, immobilizing with mutual distrust the comrades fighting.

When assumptions that come from another field are smuggled in to judge our actions, ...

it is good to remember that this "moral" is in question and that it does not coincide with ours, how could such people be among us?

Finally, it is important to pay attention to the tricky gradualism that is usually practiced to slide situations against the stated objectives.

In this location is anyone who accompanies us for reasons other than those expressed.

His mental direction is crooked from the start and he only waits for the opportunity to manifest.

Meanwhile, gradually, it will be using manifest or larvae codes that respond to a dual

language system.

Such an attitude almost always coincides with that of those who, in the name of that militant organization, de-refer other people in good faith, placing the responsibility of their barbarities on the heads of authentic people.

It is not the case to emphasize what has long been known as the "internal problems" of any human organization, but it did seem appropriate to mention the conjuncturalist root that acts in all this and that responds to the presentation of an image, future mobilizer keeping for

itself an image of immediate success.

The current situation is such that accusers of every sign and coat demand explanations in a prosecutorial tone, assuming that innocence must be demonstrated.

The interesting thing about all this is that their tactic resides in the banishment of the secondary and, consequently, in the concealment of the primary issues.

In a way, this attitude reminds us of how democracy works in companies.

In effect, employees argue about whether desks in the office should be far or near windows; if you have to put flowers or nice colors, which is not bad.

Later they vote and, by majority, the fate of the furniture and decoration is decided, which is not bad either.

But when it comes to discussing and proposing a vote around the direction and actions of the company, there is a terrifying silence ...immediately democracy freezes because you are actually in the Secondary “Kingdom”

Something different happens not with the System's prosecutors.

Suddenly a journalist takes up that role, making our tastes for certain foods suspect or demanding "commitment" & discussion on sports, astrological, or catechism issues.

Of course, there is never any crude accusation to which, supposedly, we must respond & the montage of ...

contexts, the use of loaded words with double meanings and the manipulation of contradictory images do not stop.

It is good to remember that those who are on the opposite side of us have the right to explain why they are not in a position to judge us and why we have full

justification in prosecuting them.

That, in any case, those must defend their position from our objections.
Of course, whether this can be done will depend on certain conditions and the personal ability of the contestants, but it is not without revolt to see how some who have

every right to take the initiative, lower their heads in the face of so much inconsistency.

It is also pathetic to watch certain leaders on the screen saying witty little words, dancing like bears with the host of the program or undergoing all kinds of harassment in order to...

appear in the foreground.

By following these wonderful examples, many well-intentioned people fail to understand how their message was deformed or substituted when it came to reaching large audiences through certain media.

The aforementioned highlights aspects of the Secondary “Kingdom” that operate by displacing important issues, resulting in the disinformation of the publics that are intended to be clarified.

Curiously, many progressive people fall into that loop without understanding very well

how the apparent publicity given to it produces the opposite effect.

Finally, it is not the case to leave in the field opposite positions that we must defend.

Anyone can end up reducing our position to simple frivolity by affirming that he is also, for example, "humanist" becos

he cares about the human; that it is "non-violent" because it is against war; that he is anti-discrimination because he has a black or communist friend; who is an ecologist, because you have to take care of the seals and the turtles.

But if he is rushed, he will not be able to justify at the root of what he says by showing his true anti-humanist, violent, discriminatory and predatory face.!!!

The above comments regarding some expressions of the Kingdom of the Secondary do not contribute anything new,

but sometimes it is worth warning distracted militants who trying to communicate their ideas do not notice the strange territory in which they have been confined.

I hope you can hide the discomfort of having read a thread that does not refer to your problems and interests.

I trust that next time we can continue with our amenities.!!!

Receive with this, patient reader, a great greeting and a BIG UP !!!

Thank you.