[paradigm shift] from the macro to the interpersonal

There's little doubt we're running into a dire period in the world [see any number of blogs] and there seem to be three schools of thought:

1. ruthlessly expose the bstds, rise up against them, endlessly blog about how terrible Brown and Bush are;

2. pretend it's not happening;

3. change the whole paradigm and focus on interpersonal relations as the key to sustainable resistance.

Forget macro-politics - micro-politics is the new resistance. The more people who:

1. clean up their minds, observe a moral code and teach their children to do the same;

2. learn to be satisfied and take only that which they need;

3. adopt the business principle that you're always going to have to give far more than you'll get back, that a filtration process takes place to weed out "takers" and that sufficient investment into other people will inevitably pay off ...

... and a strong foundation is built which can resist the new age of Self Gratification and Moral Ambiguity. To put it simply, a well brought up person will always win through and if the majority are well brought up [too late for many in this generation but they can start with the next] then the horrors of today's society can be resisted and circumvented.

If people are giving to one another, they can't act against each other. I think Susanna Hoffs [see last posting] is a great example. The Bangles broke up in 1989 due to internal pressures:

It's often focused on, perhaps unfairly, that the feeling of unease over Susanna Hoffs being seen as the centre of attention was the catalyst for the break-up. Different band members had different opinions, and the stresses of recording and touring took their toll.

Combined with an alleged plot by management to break up the band to ring-fence Susanna as a solo artist, the lawyers were called and the band split up ... Susanna was initially the most keen to reunite the Bangles, and eventually the other band members were persuaded.

I think one needs to go deeper. I ran some of the Youtubes past my mate and a French woman friend of mine today and certain things came out clearly. Hoffs is a honey. Why are men so hot for her and not for the equally facially beautiful Michael Steele?

Easy, says the Frenchwoman.

Hoffs is not afraid of being feminine, she doesn't feel "oppressed" by playing up to men which is a big feminist no-no, she comes on to men using innuendo, those sloe-eyes, sultry voice and every trick of personal appearance she can dream up. She stands with knees together and hands demurely in front of her, she smiles [another feminist no-no], she wants those men to want her and doesn't apologize.

She's a giver. Result - we want her badly. Not all but many, judging from the Youtube comments. Facial beauty is one thing and sure it's a big factor with her but it's how she uses it which is everything. With the greatest respect, Michael Steele could have done that but she didn't. Where in those clips was there evidence that the other three were interrelating with the audience as Hoffs always does? So one or two got all jealous.

I'm no expert but it seems it's first of all about acting sensually but not sleazily, about looking after yourself physically and perhaps dressing nicely but far more importantly - walking into any interpersonal situation with a mindset of giving to that other person. That takes some adjustment.

Yet it will always win in the end.

Example - we have three wall mirrors down in the foyer at uni, always with 12 or so girls trying to use them. You only need to walk up to one of the mirrors and they'll step out of the way to give you space. But if you indicate no - she should continue and you'll just look over her shoulder at the mirror, there'll be no result but days later, on the 3rd floor, she'll remember it and come up and talk.

Coming back to the original dilemma in this post - the dark era we're now entering. If every husband never demanded conjugal rights, if she phoned him at work and detailed in just under a minute the disgraceful things she was planning for his anatomy that evening, if she was weary and he took care of things then came and lay with her, just chatting about this and that, if they were to continually seek common ground rather than sticking to entrenched positions - it goes on and on - then nobody could divide them, the kids would pick up on it and outside attempts to divide and rule would ultimately fail.

Goody Two Shoes? Don't think so.

The new politics should have a micro-focus - each one of us should take care of the interpersonal and put it on an altruistic footing rather than a hedonistic. Pleasure and power will then come back at us like a wave or else if it won't - we move on and try again.

It's a war of attrition [note the Fabian roots].