From: heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger)
Subject: Re: Who cares
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:27:47 GMT

In article <12421@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.114742.12106@linus.mitre.org> 
>heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger) writes:
>>Then why beat ourselves about the head and shoulders over it?  If you
>>and me and everyone else on the net does our own little bit to help
>>alleviate the situation, we can live with a clear conscience.
>
>I don't really understand the clear conscience thing, that seems Christian
>and I'm not Christian. To use an analogy, to clear one's conscience seems
>like washing one's hands of it. I don't know, I don't get all the symbology.
>I'm not a sinner by default, I'm only me. My only sin would be to fall from
>my path and that's not really sin, that's human. To me it's just the question 
>of living a good life and that's as a function of time. I seek self 
>improvement and sometimes that requires that I be beat about the head and 
>shoulders, but only in the verbal sense.

I mean "clear conscience" in the sense that individual men do not need
to accept the blame from well-meaning, but misguided (IMHO), activists
who commit the crime of lumping them together with the oppressors.  Men
of today, particularly young men, bear no responsibility for what
happened 100, 50, or even 25 years ago.  We can all work together for
more progress still.  Some people do their best work by just getting
out of the way.

Your reference to it being a Christian thing brings another thought to
my mind.  This idea that the men of today have to pay for the
oppression of the past is similar to the Old Testament (sorry, I don't
recall a specific reference), where punishments were meted out to even
the fourth generation of descendants for the sins committed by someone,
in certain circumstances.

>Well, call me overly simplistic if you like, but I think the problem of our
>run away population is very easy to control. You see, who is making babies?
>The poor. Why? Because it is the only way for them to survive, to make a
>living. For the poor, children are a source of income and the knowledge
>that if they keep it up, their kind will eventually be dominant thus turning
>the tables. So it's really very simple, isn't it. Why do we have poor
>marginalized people, even in the US? I don't see why except for greed. Make
>that change and I don't see population control as a problem. I'm not talking
>welfare, you gotta teach them how to fish and provide the opportunity, not
>throw fish at 'em. They are after all humans, just like us.

I agree.  The poor must be given real and meaningful training.  The
current welfare system needs to be changed significantly.

>Good. But turn that inward pointing force outwards, towards human kind. Choose
>your battles wisely, not for personal gain but for gain of the greater being.
>Be a warrior, but be a warrior for the Grail. And be careful of the little
>people you may run over with your tanks. Everybody counts. It may be that
>one of those little people knows the missing piece that will send you in the 
>right direction, -towards the Grail.

Exactly, and my point through this whole thread is that *everyone*
needs to work for the greater good of *everyone* else.  *Special*
interest groups need to become *general* interest groups.  After all,
we are really talking about a fundamental changing of humanity here,
aren't we, rather than just the redistribution of privilege and favor?

>Now, what is your favorite color?

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I like green the
best.

>>But the OMs *do* have the numbers, if not the power.
>
>Women, if they were united, would have the numbers, but they don't have the
>physical power. There is this thing called rape which is a pretty good way
>of keeping the physically weaker down. I'm not saying you do this, but some
>do and them that do should not be on the streets.

Agreed, rape is a crime that deserves the full sanction of the law.
However, are you saying that the threat of rape would stop anyone from
getting organized and voting?

>>Nitpick:  The US is a constitutional republic, not a true democracy, as
>>I understand the distinction.
>
>Yeah, I hear you. I would prefer a democracy, but the demos have to be
>ready for that responsibilty. Call me a libertarian, if you like.

I prefer to call you a human.

>Sure, but this gets mirky at some point. Right to vote, sure no problem. But
>what about the right to a glass ceiling and the old boy network and ... well
>you get the picture. Some rights are just not so self evident.

I won't deny the glass ceiling and the old boy network don't exist.  I
will, however, suggest that it is changing.  I'm sure it's changing too
slowly for some folks, but I believe there is progress.

>>True.  Can you think of any examples from today?
>
>That's the key I think, to be looking out for those examples here today. I
>think there are some. Like the ghetto in the US, I don't understand the need
>for that at all. And the way we use the police force and the idea of "fit
>the discription". And the idea that Spanish is not an American language. 
>And the way we treat Mexico, and even Canada. And who's history are we 
>teaching in school. And the way we use culture as a weapon. And the idea of a 
>junky or a prostitute or a numbers runner as a criminal. And the ways we 
>continue to disgrace the natives. I think you see what's up. It is all very 
>confusing and complex, but solutions are at hand, it is just a matter of 
>aligning one's self.

Each of those are issues fit for a whole thread of their own, and
probably not in alt.pagan.

>>It's sad, however, that we seem unable to pull some people up, without 
>>tearing others down.
>
>Yeah, some of it seems like the creation/destruction thing. But there is no
>need for shame. When you see the greater whole and you see progress, then
>you will know happiness. Being torn down doesn't mean anything when you see
>that the greater whole is being lifted up. Sure, as a man I will probably
>lose some income and some things I have become accustomed to, but if I
>have those things unfairly, I don't have the right. I don't want things I
>don't have the right to.

I agree, I also have no right to things gained unfairly.  However, I
sense a tendency to label any successful Straight White Male a member
of the old boy network, or a recipient of things gained unfairly.  Does
this not also denigrate the hard work and achievement of a fellow human
being?  Does this not devalue them, and dehumanize them?  It is not
enough to say "it's their turn."  Real change can be effected only when
*nobody* receives things unfairly.

>I'm a man, I can pull my own way, I don't need
>any preference items and privaleges of the ruling class. Those things I
>gladly give up and when I learn of more things, I give them up too. I'm
>glad I have sisters to tell me of such things. It is not what you achieve,
>it is how you achieve. Fight the good fight. Then we will all dance and
>tell our stories, the stories of our people, all of them.

I'm glad I have sisters who point out things to me also.  However, I
hope that they will not devalue me as a human by saying my own small
achievements are the result of ill-gotten favor, instead of hard work
and perseverance on my part.  I'm sure it's hard to tell the
difference, but I believe that there are lots of honest men out there
who achieve what they do on their own merits.

Regards,

Jeff H...