As we often hear claimed, when you post to the internet, it lasts forever. I hope that is true. I have something important to say and everyone, even the ones from my time need to have heard it. We often have seen the example played out that all facts go through three stages. First they are denied, later questioned and finally accepted. Think of what went on the last time you heard someone had passed away. Initially there was a reaction to the new information, "No!" it can't seem true, because we have yet to integrate that change in our reality. Then, we typically ask, "How did it happen?" Only after we have begun to make sense of the information can we then share it. The reason that I mention this is because each generation in turn tries to speak as much truth to power as we are able and to understand that those who have become the most complacent have a vested interest in not hearing, or not listening. Billions of dollars have been spent, in half my lifetime trying to convince people that climate change can't be true. Twenty years prior to that, vested interests successfully avoided reigning in production of CFC (chloroflourocarbons), even though science accurately predicted the depletion of the ozone layer.
These callous denials of truth speak volumes to the fact that money has far too much sway over our public discourse, the political landscape and the nature of the debate. I am currently fifty years old and may seem like I'm much older, but from the age of seven I knew that my entire life would be dedicated to teaching people about ecology. When the first Earthday took place, my parents refused to let me participate because as they said, The wealthy polluters will co-opt the environmental movement and green wash everything without changing their behavior one whit. My point is that the long history of activism has never let up our push toward truth telling, our urge to change things for the better. In my time there is a tendency to draw the political map as an arc. On the left, they say, are "Democrats", socialists and communists and on the right are what have been called "Republicans", conservatives and fascists. In my own pursuit of truth I have found that all of these terms can be more confounding than anything, obscuring the facts about both the political sub-cultures that exist, but the primary fact that all of us agree on far more than we disagree over. In fact, I am not the first to mention it, but when you swing the arc all the way 'round, you can come at "no government" on either side as you move around to the top of the circle. The Left approaches total freedom through Anarchy and from the other side of the political spectrum it is approached through Libertarianism.
We have been sold a bill of goods about politics. Those who, we have been told, constitute "the middle" are not. That improper designation has altered the course of history more than most of us would have liked. In fact, there are probably nearly as many libertarians and anarchists as there are folks between Democrat and Republican, socialist and fascist, communists and conservatives. this may be the first time you have been told this, so let me try describing this a different way. Some people believe that their rights to do whatever they want supersedes the public's right to stop them. Others believe that their rights end where the next person's nose begins. In an oligarchy, where capital supersedes the good of all, you could use anarchy to lend cover for exploitation, you could use democratic principles (if enough people could be convinced in the need for capital to flow unfettered). You might even be able to claim national value and find support through a fascist state. what changes is not the final state of affairs, just the route than needs to take place to allow the power and control to flow from whatever caprice strikes the powerful elites who wield the most power. Politics is the side effect, not the disease that we must eradicate from the planet if we (you) are to have a chance at survival.
In my time, I have worked in several dozen environmental "struggles", at least a dozen more social human rights and justice "struggles" and several dozen more "mobilizations" for peace. After a lifetime of standing as a continuing testament to sanity and rationality in decision-making, it seems that the powerful elites have only gotten better at their feigned disbelief. No matter what issue one chooses to take up, no matter how modest a proposal one makes, our representatives and leaders seem to blink in ignorance. sadly, far too often, our leaders are unable to even formulate a cogent question designed to help them understand the issue better. Many, who felt the time was right in the sixties to ban the bomb, Love Mother Nature and make love not war had the fight wrung out of them by encroaching responsibilities, like paying a mortgage or having insurance...heck, many had to give up a vagabond's life by just having to pay rent. But back in those days, there were far more people who considered themselves socialists or communists than there may be today, but it is not because their core beliefs changed...it is because other folks have perceptions the push them away from using those terms. Especially in farm country, but all through the nation co-pos exist. places where people who can't afford big ticket items pool resources to share an expensive thing. Truthfully, even some corporate execs "share" jets. This is socialism. If you took the time to explain to most farmers that they were indeed socialists, because they hire out planting or harvesting because of the high cost of equipment, or take their seed to a cooperatively owned grain elevator. Perhaps something as simple as volunteering for the local fire company might just seem like the "right thing to do", but in their eyes, perhaps none of those things seem socialist to them. Same with the "conservatives". They might claim that they have every right to squander whatever resources they have the wherewithal to pay for. This is a common belief amongst those who gobble up more than their share of resources. Conserving has nothing to do with the term conservative.
The USA has a peculiar way of saying that people are either "conservative" or "liberal", but in my lifetime most "liberals" were the ones driving foreign cars and conserving fuel, decades before the first "oil crisis". Conservatives will say that "they" support limited government, (quizzically many liberals agree on that point) but under their leadership, government spending has risen more under than under administrations that leaned "left". There have always been those who knew that the in fighting and debates over what terms to use for debate, or what part each of us plays in the political spectrum have all been created falsely by those who seek to divide us and conquer public opinion. The people of the planet need to help leaders from every continent see the fallacy of opposition. what we are all opposed to is Imperialism, nationalistic fascists, religious zealots and ideologues, oppression in every form, and the extractive economies that pay no heed to the suffering they create amongst the people. Now, and for future generations the people of the Earth must stand for protection of mother earth, protection of the "commons", so that the planet can support as many of us in the future as possible. Our drive needs to change from amassing large fortunes to distribution of wealth, and resources more equitably. We are creating ever-larger food deserts and forcing more and more people into spending more and more of their lives in them, just to support ultra wealthy individuals and corporations. It seems that the harder that the public fights for limits, the more violent, and well-funded, the opposition to create any meaningful change becomes. In the future you may ask, "Where were the people, when these fights needed to be fought?" I say to you that we have not lost on account of lack of trying, but rather we were often overlooked or marginalized by well-funded elites bent on having their way with the future. Public subsidies in the form of birth defects, poverty, bankruptcy, dislocation, disease, disability or creating squalor for the sake of "development", or profitability are criminal. They always have been and they will forever be unjust, but until we can teach the oppressors that they will not be tolerated, they will continue to crush our rights to lubricate the machines of capital, aka power and control.
These callous denials of truth speak volumes to the fact that money has far too much sway over our public discourse, the political landscape and the nature of the debate. I am currently fifty years old and may seem like I'm much older, but from the age of seven I knew that my entire life would be dedicated to teaching people about ecology. When the first Earthday took place, my parents refused to let me participate because as they said, The wealthy polluters will co-opt the environmental movement and green wash everything without changing their behavior one whit. My point is that the long history of activism has never let up our push toward truth telling, our urge to change things for the better. In my time there is a tendency to draw the political map as an arc. On the left, they say, are "Democrats", socialists and communists and on the right are what have been called "Republicans", conservatives and fascists. In my own pursuit of truth I have found that all of these terms can be more confounding than anything, obscuring the facts about both the political sub-cultures that exist, but the primary fact that all of us agree on far more than we disagree over. In fact, I am not the first to mention it, but when you swing the arc all the way 'round, you can come at "no government" on either side as you move around to the top of the circle. The Left approaches total freedom through Anarchy and from the other side of the political spectrum it is approached through Libertarianism.
We have been sold a bill of goods about politics. Those who, we have been told, constitute "the middle" are not. That improper designation has altered the course of history more than most of us would have liked. In fact, there are probably nearly as many libertarians and anarchists as there are folks between Democrat and Republican, socialist and fascist, communists and conservatives. this may be the first time you have been told this, so let me try describing this a different way. Some people believe that their rights to do whatever they want supersedes the public's right to stop them. Others believe that their rights end where the next person's nose begins. In an oligarchy, where capital supersedes the good of all, you could use anarchy to lend cover for exploitation, you could use democratic principles (if enough people could be convinced in the need for capital to flow unfettered). You might even be able to claim national value and find support through a fascist state. what changes is not the final state of affairs, just the route than needs to take place to allow the power and control to flow from whatever caprice strikes the powerful elites who wield the most power. Politics is the side effect, not the disease that we must eradicate from the planet if we (you) are to have a chance at survival.
In my time, I have worked in several dozen environmental "struggles", at least a dozen more social human rights and justice "struggles" and several dozen more "mobilizations" for peace. After a lifetime of standing as a continuing testament to sanity and rationality in decision-making, it seems that the powerful elites have only gotten better at their feigned disbelief. No matter what issue one chooses to take up, no matter how modest a proposal one makes, our representatives and leaders seem to blink in ignorance. sadly, far too often, our leaders are unable to even formulate a cogent question designed to help them understand the issue better. Many, who felt the time was right in the sixties to ban the bomb, Love Mother Nature and make love not war had the fight wrung out of them by encroaching responsibilities, like paying a mortgage or having insurance...heck, many had to give up a vagabond's life by just having to pay rent. But back in those days, there were far more people who considered themselves socialists or communists than there may be today, but it is not because their core beliefs changed...it is because other folks have perceptions the push them away from using those terms. Especially in farm country, but all through the nation co-pos exist. places where people who can't afford big ticket items pool resources to share an expensive thing. Truthfully, even some corporate execs "share" jets. This is socialism. If you took the time to explain to most farmers that they were indeed socialists, because they hire out planting or harvesting because of the high cost of equipment, or take their seed to a cooperatively owned grain elevator. Perhaps something as simple as volunteering for the local fire company might just seem like the "right thing to do", but in their eyes, perhaps none of those things seem socialist to them. Same with the "conservatives". They might claim that they have every right to squander whatever resources they have the wherewithal to pay for. This is a common belief amongst those who gobble up more than their share of resources. Conserving has nothing to do with the term conservative.
The USA has a peculiar way of saying that people are either "conservative" or "liberal", but in my lifetime most "liberals" were the ones driving foreign cars and conserving fuel, decades before the first "oil crisis". Conservatives will say that "they" support limited government, (quizzically many liberals agree on that point) but under their leadership, government spending has risen more under than under administrations that leaned "left". There have always been those who knew that the in fighting and debates over what terms to use for debate, or what part each of us plays in the political spectrum have all been created falsely by those who seek to divide us and conquer public opinion. The people of the planet need to help leaders from every continent see the fallacy of opposition. what we are all opposed to is Imperialism, nationalistic fascists, religious zealots and ideologues, oppression in every form, and the extractive economies that pay no heed to the suffering they create amongst the people. Now, and for future generations the people of the Earth must stand for protection of mother earth, protection of the "commons", so that the planet can support as many of us in the future as possible. Our drive needs to change from amassing large fortunes to distribution of wealth, and resources more equitably. We are creating ever-larger food deserts and forcing more and more people into spending more and more of their lives in them, just to support ultra wealthy individuals and corporations. It seems that the harder that the public fights for limits, the more violent, and well-funded, the opposition to create any meaningful change becomes. In the future you may ask, "Where were the people, when these fights needed to be fought?" I say to you that we have not lost on account of lack of trying, but rather we were often overlooked or marginalized by well-funded elites bent on having their way with the future. Public subsidies in the form of birth defects, poverty, bankruptcy, dislocation, disease, disability or creating squalor for the sake of "development", or profitability are criminal. They always have been and they will forever be unjust, but until we can teach the oppressors that they will not be tolerated, they will continue to crush our rights to lubricate the machines of capital, aka power and control.
No comments:
Post a Comment