GreenShirt Group Agenda

[Parallex]

Right folks - time for an agenda.

It's all well and good possessing an idea, but without action, it remains precisely that - an idea.

Step 1 - Stimulate Demand.

People need to want things to change. Most people are so 'inebriated' with consumer life, that they don't realise the damage it is doing. We need to help the public understand why they are in a pickle. To quote the hobgoblin Tony Blair - "Education, Education, Education."

A 'pitch' needs to be formulated. Simple ways of displaying current undisputable issues must be found. A 'standard' of information transfer must be adhered to. Then, a way of instigating 'a drive for change' in 'awakening' activists must be approved. Dry out, allow to harden, then repeat the rinse.

Step 2 - Facilitate the Demand.

Provide a unified template for new activitists to use. This template will ensure that the message stays pure, and on-target. Fact dilution is our enemy. By providing a list of subjects / issues upon which to present, along with evidence towards said subjects, will allow a consistent delivery of hard hitting communications where it is required. At all times, encourage individual research and open-mindedness. The truth will out.

Secondly, by providing standardised materials (leaflets, presentation plinths, pull-up information stands, websites) a 'brand' of questioning and 'truthing' can be created. Only upon aggregation of serious evidence and numbers of requests from members can presentation topics / facts be changed - consistency of messaging is key. The building of an 'evidence warchest' will provide further facilities for change.

A strict code of conduct & intellectual competence will be formulated and adhered to. Activists cannot stray from the path, lest they walk straight into ignorance, bigotry and hypocrisy. This will not be ENFORCED, as it is freedom we seek. This will be expected however - retribution for infracting this code, will be a considered approach to removing said individuals from the GSG. Interaction, conduct, and messaging will all be limited to a certain point - from that point onwards it is the receiving party's responsibility to go and research information themselves, from whatever source they seek out. Spreading doubt, and a questioning attitude is the aim.

Step 3 - Propagate the Virus.

Like a virus, this message will spread from person to person - instigating a unified response from each individual. Two outcomes are available. Convergence with the GSG aims, or divergence. A direct result of either is that questions are asked, and 'gospel' facts checked. A 50% success conversion rate is likely.

Eventually, 'GSG Cells' will be created. With managing departments providing the standardised resources on a local basis - supplied from a central source. As the message, and resources at each members disposal will be the same, consistency will remain. Propagation will progress in an even and steady manner, with no need for drama or controversy.

Step 4 - Critical Mass.

Once enough populace of any nation has turned Green, foundation level change may be enacted, by people far smarter (and more qualified) than me. A new set of social & economic principles in-line with the GSG's core philosophies can be put into place - allowing true self-determination, freedom from the pursuit of solvency, and universal sustainability.

This is where things could become...challenging. If it hasn't happened before this point, the people opposed to the GSG 'way' will resist. At all times, peaceful and intelligent thoughts and actions must be first among choices.

Step 5 - Enjoy the Fruits.

We can live in a world where learning through failure is applauded. Faith can be replaced by educated confidence. Diversity grounded by logic is a sought after state. Slavery through debt / economics is history. Self-betterment and achievement is the gauge for success, rather than wealth. Etc etc.

IMPORTANT NOTE -

I appreciate this sounds a lot like a high control religion or dogma of sorts. It's purposefully designed that way. In reality it is neither, nor is it a negative process. The 'controls' of the organisation extendly only so far - engendering the questioning and doubting attitude is the aim. Creating in each person touched by this movement, a desire to understand and to 'act' is what the GSG is all about. Once that has been instilled in a person - they are free to go and do their thing whatever it may be.

The only involvement the GSG would have from that point, is a focal point and (possibly) a direction finder in the drive for change.

I will need input in terms of how we approach each section. The simpler the process, the more effective it will be.

Your thoughts are all welcome.

The Para.:Smile:

[Midas]

Right folks - time for an agenda.

It's all well and good possessing an idea, but without action, it remains precisely that - an idea.

Step 1 - Stimulate Demand.

People need to want things to change. Most people are so 'inebriated' with consumer life, that they don't realise the damage it is doing. We need to help the public understand why they are in a pickle. To quote the hobgoblin Tony Blair - "Education, Education, Education."

A 'pitch' needs to be formulated. Simple ways of displaying current undisputable issues must be found. A 'standard' of information transfer must be adhered to. Then, a way of instigating 'a drive for change' in 'awakening' activists must be approved. Dry out, allow to harden, then repeat the rinse.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but what damage do you think that the consumer society is doing to people, bearing in mind that it's also giving many people a far better quality of life that they might otherwise have had? What's this "standard of information transfer" you mention, I'm not at all sure what you mean, and the talk of "activists" is somewhat concerning I have to say.

Step 2 - Facilitate the Demand.

Provide a unified template for new activitists to use. This template will ensure that the message stays pure, and on-target. Fact dilution is our enemy. By providing a list of subjects / issues upon which to present, along with evidence towards said subjects, will allow a consistent delivery of hard hitting communications where it is required. At all times, encourage individual research and open-mindedness. The truth will out.

Secondly, by providing standardised materials (leaflets, presentation plinths, pull-up information stands, websites) a 'brand' of questioning and 'truthing' can be created. Only upon aggregation of serious evidence and numbers of requests from members can presentation topics / facts be changed - consistency of messaging is key. The building of an 'evidence warchest' will provide further facilities for change.

A strict code of conduct & intellectual competence will be formulated and adhered to. Activists cannot stray from the path, lest they walk straight into ignorance, bigotry and hypocrisy. This will not be ENFORCED, as it is freedom we seek. This will be expected however - retribution for infracting this code, will be a considered approach to removing said individuals from the GSG. Interaction, conduct, and messaging will all be limited to a certain point - from that point onwards it is the receiving party's responsibility to go and research information themselves, from whatever source they seek out. Spreading doubt, and a questioning attitude is the aim.

Exactly what "demand" are you talking about here? I have to say that what you're describing sounds an awful lot like the sort of standardisation and lack of freedom of individual choice, with penalties of some sort or other for not 'conforming', that extreme left wing socialist and communist governments have tried, and failed with, in the past.

Step 3 - Propagate the Virus.

Like a virus, this message will spread from person to person - instigating a unified response from each individual. Two outcomes are available. Convergence with the GSG aims, or divergence. A direct result of either is that questions are asked, and 'gospel' facts checked. A 50% success conversion rate is likely.

Eventually, 'GSG Cells' will be created. With managing departments providing the standardised resources on a local basis - supplied from a central source. As the message, and resources at each members disposal will be the same, consistency will remain. Propagation will progress in an even and steady manner, with no need for drama or controversy.

I don't really see what you're hoping to offer people. You seem to be promoting the concept that consumerism is wrong and asking people to reduce their freedom of choice, but what do you expect people to gain from this, in particular when you don't appear to have any alternative in mind other than offering "standardised resources", whatever they might be.

Step 4 - Critical Mass.

Once enough populace of any nation has turned Green, foundation level change may be enacted, by people far smarter (and more qualified) than me. A new set of social & economic principles in-line with the GSG's core philosophies can be put into place - allowing true self-determination, freedom from the pursuit of solvency, and universal sustainability.

This is where things could become...challenging. If it hasn't happened before this point, the people opposed to the GSG 'way' will resist. At all times, peaceful and intelligent thoughts and actions must be first among choices.

Sorry, but all this talk of 'activists', 'standardised resources', 'a new set of social & economic principles' etc., sounds very much like an idealisation of what you think society should be like with little regard for what the vast majority of other people think it should be like. I don't disagree with you that there needs to be change, a very large change in some areas, however what you're proposing sounds to me to be the antithesis of the "true self-determination..." you're espousing since it would appear to be enforced.

Step 5 - Enjoy the Fruits.

We can live in a world where learning through failure is applauded. Faith can be replaced by educated confidence. Diversity grounded by logic is a sought after state. Slavery through debt / economics is history. Self-betterment and achievement is the gauge for success, rather than wealth. Etc etc.

IMPORTANT NOTE -

I appreciate this sounds a lot like a high control religion or dogma of sorts. It's purposefully designed that way. In reality it is neither, nor is it a negative process. The 'controls' of the organisation extendly only so far - engendering the questioning and doubting attitude is the aim. Creating in each person touched by this movement, a desire to understand and to 'act' is what the GSG is all about. Once that has been instilled in a person - they are free to go and do their thing whatever it may be.

The only involvement the GSG would have from that point, is a focal point and (possibly) a direction finder in the drive for change.

I will need input in terms of how we approach each section. The simpler the process, the more effective it will be.

Your thoughts are all welcome.

The Para.:Smile:

"I appreciate this sounds a lot like a high control religion or dogma of sorts" - it does indeed! And as such I don't see that more than a handful of people would be likely to agree with you. Maybe my understanding of what you're trying to say and do is incorrect, but from first impressions a great deal of it flies in the face of people's innate nature and basic economic principles.

[Balthazar]

My 'cult warning light' is flashing. Plus if I was an Indian peasant or slum dweller, a little more consumerism wouldn't go amiss.

[Citizen Smith]

I agree. Its just a bit idealistic, lots of people try to do these things, but there are reasons they haven't been achieved. You would need to know exactly how to do these things.
Good luck!

[Parallex]

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but what damage do you think that the consumer society is doing to people, bearing in mind that it's also giving many people a far better quality of life that they might otherwise have had? What's this "standard of information transfer" you mention, I'm not at all sure what you mean, and the talk of "activists" is somewhat concerning I have to say.

I believe that there is a place for consumerism, but not in it's current form. Currently, it is unrestricted and doesn't internalise negative externalities. Products should be a lot more expensive if we took into account their true cost. We would value material possessions alot more if we had to pay their full, True cost. Far from giving people a quality of life, it's giving the first and second world's an easier, fatter and lazier quality of life, at the expense of the third world countries.

The 'standard of information' refers to an affirmative standard of evidence provided for 'truthing' certain issues - such as 9/11 and J7. The evidence is available, it's just not presented in the correct manner, or in the right place.

'Activists' are people that take a typically un-British stance, and get up off of their butt to do something about changing things. As in Iran. Less talk, more action. Be very concerned - you should be!

Exactly what "demand" are you talking about here? I have to say that what you're describing sounds an awful lot like the sort of standardisation and lack of freedom of individual choice, with penalties of some sort or other for not 'conforming', that extreme left wing socialist and communist governments have tried, and failed with, in the past.

I demand truth. I want to see government / corporate agenda's exposed, a good example is the Iraq War Inquiry being held in secret. I want to engender the "demand for truth" in other people. By standardising the information delivery system, and the messages delivered - (so that they stay on target, and don't allow for manipulation) - will keep the message pure. A pure, unadulterated message will show people the evidence in a constructive manner, and nothing else.
As for the 'conforming', a movement like this is easily hijacked - by not allowing room for this to happen, we secure it's future.

I don't really see what you're hoping to offer people. You seem to be promoting the concept that consumerism is wrong and asking people to reduce their freedom of choice, but what do you expect people to gain from this, in particular when you don't appear to have any alternative in mind other than offering "standardised resources", whatever they might be.

Consumerism IS wrong, in its current form. See above. View the TED Presentation on the "Paradox of Choice" about freedom of choice, and you will see where I'm coming from. When I'm offering these 'standardised resources' I'm purely talking about Step 1 in the road to change - Education. The GSG is not for governing - only promoting change. The first step is educating people, best done through use of a standardised syllabus of learning. Hence, standardised materials.

Sorry, but all this talk of 'activists', 'standardised resources', 'a new set of social & economic principles' etc., sounds very much like an idealisation of what you think society should be like with little regard for what the vast majority of other people think it should be like. I don't disagree with you that there needs to be change, a very large change in some areas, however what you're proposing sounds to me to be the antithesis of the "true self-determination..." you're espousing since it would appear to be enforced.

My idea IS an idealisation of society. I believe in the idea that if you show people the evidence of deceit, in a clear and undaulterated fashion, they will act upon it. As the MP's Expenses Scandal shows. What I am proposing to be 'expected' is that of regimented control of the message delivered, so that the Mainstream Media, and other idiot brigades don't bastardise it. If you are wondering where the content will be coming from in each information module, I'm going to be asking the foremost authorities in each area to write each module for me. Once pulled together, the evidence will be presented in the street, on the radio, on the TV, by GSG activists. Inspiring questioning and doubting behaviour is key.

"I appreciate this sounds a lot like a high control religion or dogma of sorts" - it does indeed! And as such I don't see that more than a handful of people would be likely to agree with you. Maybe my understanding of what you're trying to say and do is incorrect, but from first impressions a great deal of it flies in the face of people's innate nature and basic economic principles.

The way I present the idea is not perfected as of yet. Hence why I'm running it through the mill with competent people like yourselves. Your point about the innate nature of people and basic economic principles is central to my beliefs. People want to be free - to be free, you have to challenge what is a restrictive, fascist and regressive status quo. Doing this in a co-ordinated and constructive manner is again, key. Noone has achieved this as of yet. The GSG plans to. 'Deny Ignorance' folks.

Thankyou everyone for being constructive and open-minded so far, it's a refreshing change.

The Para.

[Richardw]

Hi and welcome Parallex.

Can I ask where your ideology stands on gender equality? I have experienced and encountered much gender inequality that affects males, yet the authorities tend to prefer to address sexism against females only.

Below are two of my previous posts on this forum to give you an idea of what I mean.

http://www.politic.co.uk/european-un...html#post51921


http://www.politic.co.uk/england/131...en-needed.html


Many thanks.

[Parallex]

My stance on gender equality is precisely that. Equality.

I don't believe men and women should be treated differently in most situations. I do however believe that sensible logic should be applied. Men and women suffer behaviour inducing bodily functions in different ways - this, along with environmental stimuli should be taken into account in assessing behaviour of people.

We are all human, men and women just have physiological differences. That's all.

Bit of a tangent here my friend.

The Para.

[Richardw]

Thanks a lot.

[Midas]

I believe that there is a place for consumerism, but not in it's current form. Currently, it is unrestricted and doesn't internalise negative externalities. Products should be a lot more expensive if we took into account their true cost. We would value material possessions alot more if we had to pay their full, True cost. Far from giving people a quality of life, it's giving the first and second world's an easier, fatter and lazier quality of life, at the expense of the third world countries.

OK, we agree on one thing, and that's consumerism in its present form, or at least, some aspects of modern consumerism need change, however that's something which I think it will take a very brave government to even attempt. Quite rightly in many ways it'll be seen by the vast majority as interfering with their right and ability to either manufacture, sell or buy what product they choose and at what price they can afford.

On the matter of 'true cost', again in some ways I agree. I'm thinking more food items here, where huge government agricultural subsidies have kept the price of many staple food items artificially low. If we're to have good quality food produced in ethical and healthy ways, the public has to be prepared to pay more for it otherwise many more farmers will go out of business. But in most other walks of life, the 'true' cost of something is a balance between what people are prepared to pay for it and what it actually costs to manufacture/produce, and in a healthy (unsubsidised) economy, this balance is usually reached quite naturally.

We've had a bit of a discussion here before on the effect of western consumerism on third world countries, and I know many people don't agree, often because they don't look at all the realities of life and tend to see only what they want to see - the typical woolly-headed liberal viewpoint, trying to impose their values on different cultures - but western consumerism is in general greatly beneficial to many of those countries. If western manufacturers didn't set up factories there, and employ local people to do the work, many of them would have no work at all, and far from being paid 'slave wages' - which I quite accept they are by our standards - they're not by the local standards of the country concerned. It's not up to us here in the west to interfere with the laws, economies, working conditions and social structures of other countries.

The 'standard of information' refers to an affirmative standard of evidence provided for 'truthing' certain issues - such as 9/11 and J7. The evidence is available, it's just not presented in the correct manner, or in the right place.

But that's a mixture of political expediency and differing viewpoints for you. It's very rare that any two people will come to exactly the same conclusions about any complex event; add that to the fact that 'the truth' sometimes need to presented only selectively to the public for very good reasons - ongoing investigations and the maintenance of law and order to mention just two - we have a situation where total transparency is not always a good idea. Having said that I will agree that there is a culture of secrecy in government where often there's no need for it, and that can have adverse effects in many areas of public and private life.

'Activists' are people that take a typically un-British stance, and get up off of their butt to do something about changing things. As in Iran. Less talk, more action. Be very concerned - you should be!

How many times in the past have we seen whole hosts of people 'getting up and doing something' about various issues, like the CND, anti-bypass opponents and anti-globalisation protesters for instance? And how many times have they achieved anything other than getting themselves a bad name and causing a tightening of the laws of freedom of action which then have an adverse effect on all of us? Don't get me wrong, there are many causes which need fighting, but I don't believe simply becoming 'an activist' is the way to go.

I demand truth. I want to see government / corporate agenda's exposed, a good example is the Iraq War Inquiry being held in secret. I want to engender the "demand for truth" in other people. By standardising the information delivery system, and the messages delivered - (so that they stay on target, and don't allow for manipulation) - will keep the message pure. A pure, unadulterated message will show people the evidence in a constructive manner, and nothing else.

At least we agree on something! But that does need qualifying; there are very many good reasons why at least some agendas need to be kept secret, for national and corporate security reasons to name but one.

Consumerism IS wrong, in its current form. See above. View the TED Presentation on the "Paradox of Choice" about freedom of choice, and you will see where I'm coming from. When I'm offering these 'standardised resources' I'm purely talking about Step 1 in the road to change - Education. The GSG is not for governing - only promoting change. The first step is educating people, best done through use of a standardised syllabus of learning. Hence, standardised materials.

So how would you go about changing people's consumer habits in the real world, in particular when all those people will see is you saying they should have less choice? Whilst I'm not your average consumer in that I can afford to go for high quality over cost every time, and also in that the 'name' of any particular brand carries very little weight with me, how would you go about trying to change my spending habits and what message that would have any real impact on me would you give out?

I agree that education in its widest sense needs changing on a great many levels, but that's something which has to come from government down and will, conservatively, take at least a whole generation before the results are seen. There have been many examples of both governments and private groups trying to 'educate' people in various ways, and whilst some of these might have had a small and short term effect on some people, in the wider scheme of things they're failures. Look at the various government initiatives on obesity for example. If many millions of our tax pounds spent by the government on trying to educate people to the dangers of both over and incorrect eating have had so little overall effect on people despite the very real health risks involved, what chance do you think trying to 'educate' people away from freedom of choice and towards the standardisation you think we need will have, realistically?

My idea IS an idealisation of society. I believe in the idea that if you show people the evidence of deceit, in a clear and undaulterated fashion, they will act upon it. As the MP's Expenses Scandal shows. What I am proposing to be 'expected' is that of regimented control of the message delivered, so that the Mainstream Media, and other idiot brigades don't bastardise it. If you are wondering where the content will be coming from in each information module, I'm going to be asking the foremost authorities in each area to write each module for me. Once pulled together, the evidence will be presented in the street, on the radio, on the TV, by GSG activists. Inspiring questioning and doubting behaviour is key.

Sorry if you think I'm being negative or defeatist, I'm neither, but trying to impose your view of an idealised society onto people won't get you very far. At best you'll gather together a few misfits in society (meant in the nicest possible way) with similar views, and perhaps get a few limited messages across through the mainstream media because of the novelty aspect, but with all due respect I think you're going to be viewed more as a small group of cranks than anything else - again said in the most sympathetic way because I know in some ways some of what you're saying is right. It's one thing being idealistic about life and society, it's a totally different matter getting that idealism over in the real world in a way that people will both understand and accept.

The way I present the idea is not perfected as of yet. Hence why I'm running it through the mill with competent people like yourselves. Your point about the innate nature of people and basic economic principles is central to my beliefs. People want to be free - to be free, you have to challenge what is a restrictive, fascist and regressive status quo. Doing this in a co-ordinated and constructive manner is again, key. Noone has achieved this as of yet. The GSG plans to. 'Deny Ignorance' folks.

Thankyou everyone for being constructive and open-minded so far, it's a refreshing change.

The Para.

Well, all I can say is good luck, because I think you're going to need luck in bucketfuls! I hope I haven't come across as being too negative, look at it more as constructive criticism, but quite honestly I have little expectation that you'll get anywhere other than more and more frustrated.