The power of the individual in mass modern society mostly consists in the ability to say NO — and perhaps in being prepared to accept consequences.
Consequences may include lowered standard of living, curtailment of advancement, physical relocation, social ostracism, overt state repression, abandonment of citizenship, and torture and death.
People who say NO often discover the joy of exercising freedom, and the sometimes surprising lack of immediate direct proportional consequence for standing out and speaking up. This is especially true if resistance has foundation in genuine social relationships. [See The Power of Habit for an enthralling account of how and why Rosa Parks managed to spark a revolution.]
States tolerate dissent only to the extent that the recalcitrance is seen as no real threat to state agenda. A standard ploy, especially in sophisticated “democracies,” is to regard dissent as ephemeral steam blowoff and to make sure that it gets mimimal reporting. Especially in the state’s own “statistics.”
Assemblies of the powerless may fragment as some subset of the powerless attempt to exercise unwarranted power within the assembly itself, in the absence of any other suitable social venue. Often these would-be power-mongers discover that their fallback power reduces to exit from the assembly. Unless an alternative faction can be established, the exiting individual thus opts for self-isolation. Standards of honesty and consistency would suggest that showboaters not continue to lurk after doing their best to foster schism with noisy exit.
A handful of individuals have left Brock on emotional grounds. Their chief indicators seem to be disgusting and nauseating. These words do not derive from the sphere of reason and argument. I’m all for emotion, and intensely scrutinize professions of love for civility and rationality for those all-too-inevitable tentacles of repression.
The only thing that pains me is to see some larger set of Brockers start to think that a minor rupture over a smidgen of Brock content says anything about Brock. Or to doubt the competence of information seekers to assess for themselves the data they sift through. Or to wonder whether Brock could or should be anything other than a voluntary assembly of autonomous free individuals. Or to suppose that most untoward postings or comments should be met with anything but silence. Unless something is really awry, the best counteraction is absolute nonreaction — let detritus quickly be enveloped in the ever-accreting verbal silt.
In the interests of balance — which is what pursuit of dialectic is all about — I am far more concerned about hearing from Joe Smith who has paused into silence than about looking in the rearview mirror at two or three who chose to blast off with fireworks.
“The only thing that pains me is to see some larger set of Brockers start to think that a minor rupture over a smidgen of Brock content says anything about Brock. “
Smidgen? The rant percentage here has gone off the charts. This is the main difference of the content of this blog now versus just a few months ago, and that is why people are leaving.
@Bankei: I don’t know what you mean by “rant”; is that your way of nullifying the content that you disagree with?
Your first comment in July 2012; so I don’t know how familiar you actually are with the full contents of this blog. I just want to nip this concept in the bud. The blog’s content hasn’t substantially changed. I suggest that you have look at our archive page for the first few days. Read this page for example: The Canadian press is clueless, but this commenter gets it.
@ Bankei
Perhaps you missed some of the threads where Brockers were discussing how they cope with the stress of their particular situations and how their lives have changed over a period of time because of US tax policy. Rants are a natural coping mechanism and I don’t see them as a blight on this site at all because I have come to appreciate IBS as being both informative AND supportive and having an outlet for some justifiable rage can be helpful. Humour is another coping mechanism and granted tastes differ there but it is possible to simply move along to another thread where there’s bound to be a more serious discussion going on. I tend to read everything though because I’ve found some valuable nuggets in the comments sections, tucked away in unexpected places. Highly moderated sites are smooth and glossy I suppose but I like this diamond in the rough we have here. The heavy hitter contributors are gems in their own right and the commenters are articulate and represent a great assortment of backgrounds, all of which gives this place spirit and sparkle.
@USX, I hope also that Joe Smith will pipe in at some point.
It does seem that those who depart do so on the grounds of emotionalism. Folks have only responded to the slippery slope arguments presented by Joe and myself as being somehow off limits and beyond the pale without actually acknowledging the pain that our Swiss contingent is experiencing because they have become persona non grata in Switzerland.
But from the beginning of this witch hunt (there’s a metaphor, is that a “rant” or is it “nauseating” to compare what’s happening to a “witch hunt”), the United States is harming its expats everywhere severely with FBAR and FATCA and forcing some like myself to take the “extreme” measure of renouncing the United States citizenship.
Some have had enough of ranting. I have had enough of looming or effective schisms. How can we have a schism when we were never partisan or agreed upon a unique Catéchisme in the first place?
So we disagreed over the question of the Untergang parody film or the FATCA star being either offensive or not, germaine to the debate or not? Maybe some would prefer the “A” badge for adultery (after all many of us have left America and become intimately involved with other nations, even obtaining “foreign” citizenship before renouncing or not renouncing or divorcing or whatever). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter Still, somebody somewhere who is sensitive about feminist issues would probably object to my drawing that analogy because they might see it as trivializing another cause Ok, if that is no good, why about McCarthyism and Arthur Miller’s play “The Crucible”: If not “IRS jihad” would “Witch Hunt for evil USP traitor tax evaders” be acceptable to everyone? (as Petros just brought up and posted above while I was writing this present post)
It is not the words and parallels we draw to illustrate our feelings, thoughts and analysis, but the deep moral, democratic, and historical issues causing us to be here at IBS in the first place. It is not the where and the what, it is the why and how that we should be focusing on.
The scarlet A
For American. Excellent idea Jefferson.
The A was for Adultery in the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
A further parody in German translation could be U for US and “Unsucht”.
The A works in French tel quel
@usxcanada: Very well put.
@Bankei:
I’m still amazed at how ‘fake’ this so called controversy seems. I honestly don’t see a problem here. Isaac Brock hasn’t changed at all. It’s exactly the same Brock that was the only breath of fresh air when I unfortunately learned about all this tax insanity.
What are the other options? As I said before: Scare tactics by the IRS as well as by the online accountants who were pressuring people to enter the ‘amnesty’ program. With very few exceptions, this is still the case.
Try to find another forum that in any way can help you see the wood for the trees. How about a British forum where people were urging others to declare their Oyster cards? How ridiculous is that? Instant self made ‘lay’ experts were urging others to go even beyond IRS requirements by spooking people to declare the most inane things.
And the unique position of the Isaac Brock society is now being called into question because of the word ‘Nazi’? How hypocritical is that? It’s okay to brandish that word when it suits one’s purpose and in the same breath declare the usage unacceptable when it suits another purpose?
So some people found it offensive. In what way exactly? In what way were those people *personally* harmed by a comparison that wasn’t directed at a specific individual, but at ever increasing discriminatory practices by the US government against a sub section of its own people?
And some other people found the Nazi spoof offensive. Really? After zillions of Nazi spoofs by every imaginable persuasion over the last 60 years, this one suddenly becomes censorship-worthy?
Okay. We’ve moved beyond that. It happened. Some people didn’t like it. There are other synonyms for Nazi that one can use. No problem. The message remains the same:
“The Isaac Brock Society consists of individuals who are concerned about the treatment by the United States government of US persons who live in Canada and abroad.”
And in every respect, nothing has changed. That concern is still there and is the reason why this site will continue to exist and why so many affected people are grateful for its existence. I am tired of hearing individuals claim that ‘people are being driven away’. No one is. Some people are choosing to exit voluntarily. But it’s telling that those who are most offended are still hanging around hoping that by exaggerating the extent and importance of the (non) conflict, it will self fulfill their prophecies.
It’s seriously incomprehensible that a spat about a commonly used term that was used in a very detailed comparative context can negate all the incredible effort, research, time and dedication put in by the many individuals who have contributed to this site. The reality is: It can’t and it won’t. Those who for their own reasons don’t like this site anymore are free to leave. Wish we could all leave the current IRS assault with the same ease.
Now let’s go back to focusing on the raison d’etre of the Isaac Brock society and not be side tracked with irrelevant detours that are essentially a squabble over semantics and can only very disingenuously be misconstrued as a ‘radical change’ in the content or modus operandi of the Isaac Brock society.
Ooops, Scarlet A has already been used as a lapel pin by some other group, Atheists it looks like ? http://richarddawkins.net/videos/3455-richard-dawkins-explains-his-39-scarlet-a-39-lapel-pin-the-out-campaign
Petros – been here since you picked up and moved stakes from the other forum. Was there a long time too. My particular path has been the opposite of those leaving; i have begun to engage in response to the increasing acrid and hyperbolic tone. Because no serious “mainstream” media channels will take this blog seriously so long as it is filled with hyperventilation about genocide, ethnic cleansing, and birther rants against obama. And I think – pragmatically – that is a pity, a tragic loss for the Brock ’cause’.
“The Isaac Brock Society consists of individuals who are concerned about the treatment by the United States government of US persons who live in Canada and abroad.”
I am all for this definition. But when individuals who happen to support Obama, or draw a pension from the government are excoriated – this definition rings hollow.
I think Isaac Brock has a similar problem to that faced by newspapers. The urge to keep things moving along means writing about something. Even when nothing notable has happened.
Six months ago FBAR and FATCA confusion and disinformation reigned all over the internet. Over time the fog has cleared, thanks to excellent research from many participants, both amateur and professional. At the start folk had to post here and ask their questions, making the site busy. Now new visitors will probably find someone who mostly matches their situation has already sorted out the answer for them. So no need to post.
On an average day nothing at all happens in the FATCA world. That and no new posters creates a void. The challenge for the site is to keep up momentum during these periods and without filling the void with irrelevance or demagoguery.
And to those who claim to have left the site, I encourage you to look up the definition of “flounce” 🙂
@Bankei, what you say is too true. No serious mainstream media source will take this blog seriously, but not because of what we write here. That’s for other reasons.
But honestly, your comment is hyperbolic about the so-called hyperbole. And please excuse me, but I did not “excoriate” Steven Mopsick. I mentioned that he was a trial lawyer and a US Federal Worker, both groups vote heavily democrat, and thus likely an Obama voter and that might explain his reason for leaving. I think that that affects his objectivity. I admit that could be wrong.
But let me just say this: I do indeed resent having to file taxes in the United States when I pay my taxes here in Canada. I don’t get a government pension, and I will not pay for the government pension of a person who draws it from the United States. Why should I? Because of the protection I receive from the United States? I am not slave or a protectorate of the United States. I help pay pensions of Federal, Provincial and Municipal workers here in Canada; I contribute to Old Age Pension in Canada. I pay my fair share. It is not extreme for me to say this.
Bankei, as I stated elsewhere, this is not a professional site, but rather just a site with outgoing links to professionals and some really good posts and information. I don’t exactly agree with the star thing or some analogies and opinions, but controlling the content is not an easy task: If you restrict opinions and speech, people get upset. If you let everything go, people get upset.
Peter, I understand your discontent with Obama. But these issues that affect us have almost nothing to do with whoever is President of the US. It’s the result of distorted perception on the part of Americans that all of us who live overseas are rich and not paying any taxes whatsoever. US Residents are fed this propoganda so bureaucrats can further their own agendas.
@Watcher Interesting take. Here in Switzerland, we had the 21 June announcement of IGA on FATCA. Now we are waiting until end of August, or even September to find out what the arrangement actually looks like. This reminds me of the September-November period back in 2009 when some of us were waiting to find out if we were part of the 5000 or the 500 targeted UBS clients.
@Geeez, I agree it is not likely to get better under Romney. But it has certainly gotten much worse under Obama.
You show very well the dilemma I face, and given the choice to open an alternative to the Expat Forum, we decided to go with the uncensored forum (well, mostly not censored).
I think that is an entirely reasonable thing to say, in an entirely reasonable tone. I also think Watcher makes an excellent point about the limbo-like quality of the situation.
I don’t believe Mr. Mopsick’s political leanings or where he gets his retirement from have anything to do with the discussion. I am in the exact same Fatca situation as many who profess extreme distaste for the current president. I also happen to think the election of Barack Obama over GW Bush was a temporary breath of sanity in an otherwise surreal 20 years of jingoism and war. Does that make my entries here on this blog politically suspect, or less worthy?
Petros and all
I agree with bankel.
As you say “I do indeed resent having to file taxes in
the United States when I pay my taxes here in Canada. I don’t get a
government pension, and I will not pay for the government pension of a
person who draws it from the United States. Why should I? Because of
the protection I receive from the United States? I help pay pensions of
Federal, Provincial and Municipal workers here in Canada; I contribute
to Old Age Pension in Canada. So I feel that I pay my fair share. I am
not slave or a protectorate of the United States. It is not extreme
for me to say this.”
That is why we are all here. That is the message that we are trying to get out. No on this site could possibly accuse you of being “extreme” for that statement. I don’t think that is what anyone is saying, and you know it.
I come here because I am looking for information and this is the best place for it. I pick out the useful stuff from the off topic rants, which I ignore. But I am sometimes uncomfortable with the general tone of the discussion
People on this site are of all political persuasions, but we all have the same general set of problems with the IRS and the US tax system. If we are going to have discussions of politics here (and I’m not sure this is really the right place for a lot of that) I think they need to be done civilly, on the understanding that our brothers and sisters in this fight do not necessarily share our views in other areas. It is one thing for someone to say “I hate Obama” because of xyz….. It is another thing altogether to suggest that any person who supports Obama is somehow a possible traitor to our cause.
ie your comments about Steven Mopsick ” I mentioned that he was a trail lawyer and a US Federal Worker, both
groups vote heavily democrat, and thus likely an Obama voter and that
might explain his reason for leaving. I think that that affects his
objectivity. I admit that could be wrong.”
Whether that is the reason he left or not, the fact that you think a particular political orientation might make one uncomfortable on this site says it all. Yes, my politics lean more towards the democrats, although I have no intention of voting for anyone this year. When I read an “anti-progressives” rant, I generally ignore it. I don’t really think this is the place to get into that sort of argument. But the more it happens, the less comfortable I feel here.
I am not leaving, as long as there is still useful information to be found, but it is sad to see the site getting bogged down in stuff that really is a distraction from it’s original intent.
@Canuckdoc, This persecution started many years before Obama. But it was intensified under Obama reign. I will not apologize for my lack of appreciation for Obama’s accomplishments. I have not been partisan at this blog, despite appearances. I am a young Canadian (1+ years old), and I make no comments in favour of one of the Canadian parties; though I have my preferences, I will not join a party as long as I am administrator for Isaac Brock: I have friends at Isaac Brock from all three main parties and I prefer to remain neutral. As for American politics, I am no longer an American. I endorsed Ron Paul but I am against Obama and can not endorse Romney, except that perhaps he will not be the persecutor that Obama has become. If you want to get Joe Green to make a response; or any other Obama supporter out there, please be my guest. So there you go. The website is not getting bogged down at all because everyone has a chance to say what they want to say. I have said that if Douglas Shulman wanted to write or comment at Isaac Brock he would be welcome.
So please invite Joe Green to do a guest post here. I welcome it. I welcomed Steven Mopsick and featured his posts, pulling them out comments. I posted his articles when he asked me. He is still welcome here. However, he’s caused me not a small amount of grief by his stubborn refusal to accept our editorial policy.
I have been adamant that this website will remain uncensored except to the degree that it would otherwise violate Canadian laws–I am unaware that we’ve done something illegal. Otherwise, it is a free discussion. I am just one free voice here. In my view that it is a democratic value to allow for freedom of discussion. This means if you don’t like the tone, there isn’t much that I can do about it except change my opinions or stop writing–I don’t control anyone else except myself. Yet I have, like everyone else, the right to offer my opinions here.
@Bankei, you have the right to say what you want about G. W. Bush, but bear in mind, that others may come here and defend him. But I don’t see how Obama’s foreign policy is any better, and indeed, in some ways it is considerably worse, especially for Expats.
Supporting Obama, however, at this stage is in my opinion masochistic for Expats. We have suffered a great deal under his regime. I for one will never get over the fact that the Obama administration (with Bush’s help–he signed the 2008 HEART Act) has made the only realistic choice for me was to renounce my citizenship.
In this comment, Mr. Mopsick mentioned that he offered to “help draft a response to a letter which everyone agreed could be viewed as an invitation for a dialogue between the Isaac Brock Society and the White House.“
Can you explain what he is referring to? Is this something we might want to consider that would help our cause?
@Christophe, it was something that myself and couple others had started, and with one thing and another, the project was not realized. However, one of the persons has said now that he will write a draft. Whether Steven will still be willing to review the letter is not at all certain.
Steven says he is working pro bono for us in this regard and that is true. Yet none of the rest of us are paid to do this advocacy work either.
Watcher – Excellent comment above. Your point cannot become too prominent.
Repeating also this:
Brock promises to be a very long haul. Real news is sparse, especially in August.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/08/03/me-im-a-moderate/comment-page-1/#comment-43701
Children lose patience and start to act up and pick fights when the heat gets to them.
US party politics: Mittrack Obomney or Barmitt Rombama? Hold your breath! Fascination with epiphenomena betokens brain death.
@bankei, Could you please explain the roots of your unhealthy obsession with Rush Limbaugh and why you keep trying to smear this blog as being “limbo-like”? Watcher didn’t bring up his name, you keep doing it. No one else but you, and as Petros has stated the tea-party and Ron Paul are our natural allies. Rush Limbaugh and virtually all the conservative talk radio hosts despise Ron Paul, but you must know that. And I sincerely doubt whether Rush Limbaugh would support the repeal of citizenship based taxation, so please explain yourself here.
I think that most of us faced with the hard choices between expatriation and form-nation-enslavement have begun waking up to the reality of welfare state government in the 21st century. Some of us are farther along in the awakening process due to having had more experience with Federal tyranny. Some of us still are completely enveloped in the federal government misinformation bubble. Democrats, having long been members of the party at the root of bloated central government tyranny, seem to take longer to get through the awakening. Don’t worry, the rest of us are very patient. We just don’t like it when people try to force us to go back to sleep. And by all means tell us about where you are in the process
Confederate. My reference to Limbaugh was a direct response to Petros referring to Limbaugh. I have no obsession with Limbaugh.
The limbo reference was to the no-news limbo that Watcher described. It had nothing to do with the quality of this blog.