By Patrice Greanville

The issue of guns and violence in America usually go together, provoking huge debates and divisions within the liberal camp. Rightwingers, chiefly thanks to temperament, massive ignorance (a lot of it willfully ingested), and a simplistic understanding of reality, usually avoid such basic ideological clashes. They’re lucky in that regard because, not too prone to handwringing as liberals, over time it helps them preserve tactical and strategic unity.

The question of under what circumstances guns in private hands are useful and necessary, and whether social violence manifested in crime and psychotic killings is aided or not by the ready supply of all types of weapons, is difficult to sort out without examining the fabric of society.

The Swiss reportedly have about half the American rate of guns in private hands, yet their overall rate of violence and mayhem is practically nil. Canadians, with one-third the American rate, a significant stat in any country, are not besieged by fear of their fellow citizens (or government) the way Americans are, and still in 2012, even in the larger towns and cities, they refuse to lock their doors. (A surprising fact presented in bold relief by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine). The rate of violent crime, and especially serial killings, as in Switzerland, is negligible. And even Serbia, a nation convulsed by war, civil war, and foreign meddling (that has yet to cease); a society that should have more than its share of sociopaths and psychopaths, traumatized ex-soldiers, and which occupies the #2 spot in gun ownership in the world, with 58 guns per 100 people as opposed to 89 per 100 in the US, has a pallid rate of violent crime, insignificant by American standards.  This is recognized by the usually over-protective if not paranoid US State Department which notes in its advisory for Serbia, “Belgrade does not have high levels of street crime, but pick-pocketing and purse snatchings do occasionally occur…” Wow. Start trembling, folks.

So what does it all  mean? In my view, that as is common knowledge, the US is a sick society, sicker than just about any other nation on the planet, a situation directly related to a putrid value system rooted in selfishness and hyper individualism, a culture in perpetual frenzy (due to the bombardment of imbecilic and invidious commercial images and plots), and a profound inequality and economic insecurity that has been eroding public morale and morality for well over a century.

In this toxic atmosphere, the number of unhinged people, isolated ticking bombs roaming around in America’s streets and public spaces, people like James Holmes, is probably growing due to the rapidly accelerating breakdown of society and its supporting mechanisms.  Given such conditions of life, can anyone lay down absolute rules of conduct in connection with guns, in the household, of example? Can anyone tell a woman that keeping a gun nearby is wrong when home invasions are on the rise across the country? (The term “home invasion” is elusive, and statistics on it as a separate category of crime not reliable, but “burglar striking an occupied residence,” or “home invasion with intent to rape, murder or kidnap” are congruent categories covering the same terrain and easily extrapolated.)

So, going back to the question, is it a good idea to keep a gun at home for personal defense (assuming you know how to use a gun and how to use it responsibly), or to take a gun in the car when traveling at night or to unknown places, especially in the case of women, the answer can’t be a categorical “No” in the United States. In some situations a gun is indeed the only element that tips the scales toward safety and survival. As one of the most famous gun manufacturers once advertised, “God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal”.  So I respect those who choose to have a weapon for self-defense. In fact, though I never kept weapons of any kind to hunt non-human animals, an activity I regard as brutal, and anachronistic in modern society, where a trip to the nearest supermarket is almost always a lot cheaper than a foray into the woods, I’ve always had guns myself and am fairly familiar with their use under a variety of circumstances.

Now for the caveats. Psychotic violence —and even common crime— occur with little or no warning, so guns can rarely protect in an absolute manner.  Once “they got the drop on you” —as they say—the game is pretty much over.  And guns in general are also as likely to hit a friendly target (beginning with their owner) as a real or imagined threat.  So the gun as a protective device is only of relative merit.  Its presence may actually serve far more to steady the nerves and act lucidly on a tight spot than actually decide confrontations by regular shoot-em-ups. That may be a desirable benefit.  Fact is, many people on the left, like people in general, quietly keep guns in their homes or place of work. As well, small business owners, especially those in direct service to the public, like gas stations, bodegas, or “package goods” are often armed. Such choice does not make them—or me—pals of the hideous Anne Coulter or Wayne LaPierre, nor hidden fans of the equally detestable Glenn Beck. It’s a personal question.

The long shadow of the (miscontrued) 2nd Amendment

But, let’s say it for the record: I’m firmly against the “gun culture” mob, the 2nd Amendment baloney (about that more below), and the NRA, and its baleful influence on American politics, society, the treatment of animals, and the wackadoodlery it generally encourages. It’s obvious that the unrestricted hoarding and easy access to guns and all sorts of weapons in America, to the degree that more than a few individuals have been able to accumulate minor arsenals, has become a monstrous deformation and a clear danger to civil society, as so many instances of serial killers and random gun violence attest.

But what about guns as protection against government tyranny or as revolutionary weapon of last resort? This comment is not intended as a wide-ranging discussion of these issues so I will make only passing reference to some points that deserve attention.

First, I doubt very much that an armed citizenry can successfully contain or neutralize the armed might of the American state—if the latter decides to go for broke. Barring an outright civil war from the beginning—with the US armed forces split down the line—I can only envision —at best—some form of sporadic partisan-type resistance as existed in the German-occupied territories during WW2 or today’s Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly successful over time if the tyranny becomes obvious to most, which again may take a long time, as the stubborn obtuseness of at least half of the American population in the face of enormous abuse and fraud by the reigning plutocracy sorrily demonstrates. In sum, the romantic idea of a “rebel army” with no connection to formal units of the US military, and created by an accretion of armed citizens, is far more fantasy than reality. Isolated individuals, no matter how heavily armed, would be easily surrounded and blotted out one by one.  In that sense, the 2nd Amendment loyalists and would-be militiamen are only deluding themselves.  Far more likely, the nation may descend gradually from chaos into some type of civil war, where the proliferation of guns will surely play a role. Which role is not easy to say at this point.

Some voices have suggested that the case of Syria presents an interesting (and to many liberals, discomfiting) example of what small-caliber weapons can do to shake a government.  Here small arms in the hands of irregulars have apparently made a difference in wearing down and even occasionally defeating heavily armed forces.

The lesson may not be so clear or so exportable to the home ground as it appears at fist blush. Syria is caught in a rapidly shifting and very fluid civil war by now, with ample supplies of weapons of all types flowing into the country courtesy of the rebels’ foreign sponsors, improbable in the case of an American conflict, at least during its inception.  And the cultural, historical, and tribalistic fissures that apply to Syria do not apply to the same degree or at all in the US.  If anything, Syria today is the inverse of what might eventually obtain in the US, where a largely static, urban and semi-rural population might be receiving an all-out assault of heavily armed police and military, not “rebel” forces of some indeterminate stripe.  We’re assuming, of course, that the vast majority of the people in this case would be opposing the government (assuming again for good reasons, not wacko reasons as propounded by the right), an unlikely event given the atrocious and deeply entrenched political confusion obtaining in America at this juncture. In short, the actual value of small-caliber weapons to resist a state attack remains unclear and at best circumstantial.

The above brings up the question of so-called “revolutionary violence.”  As is the case with owning a private handgun I’m afraid this can’t be resolved in the abstract, nor with anything approaching absolutistic certainty. Only confronted with specific and concrete situations can we approach a reasonable position. Historically it has been the state, representing the forces and interests of a corrupt minority, that has made the first moves toward a liberal use of violence, both to intimidate and later on decapitate and smash the insurgency. In such cases I think revolutionary self-defense is inevitable and just. Those who preach nonviolence at all times and under all circumstances are leading the people to the abattoirs. And they’re not being historical but idealistic in the worst possible sense of that term.

My position on pacifism is well set forth in my critique of Ward Churchill’s book, Pacifism as Pathology
And you can read it here.

But for those who will not travel the distance, here it is in a nutshell:  I’m not a pacifist, am not an absolutist about the idea the left, the revolutionists, should always refuse to defend themselves, and so on. Even the great modern “apostles” of tactical nonviolence (yes, nonviolence in contemporary conflicts is much more a tactic than a philosophical position), Martin Luther King and Gandhi, especially the latter, are clear about the role of violence: it has a legitimate place at the table.  Some passages from my review may help to clarify my position further:

Seeking to drive a stake through the heart of middle-class pacifism, Churchill goes on to detail (and rebuke) some of the main claims made by the peaceful legions, particularly the almost universally accepted notion that it was the protests and demonstrations in the US that finally forced US policymakers to order a withdrawal from Vietnam. Churchill refutes this conceit by noting that the war was lost in the field, which is undeniable, as the humiliating images of Americans escaping Saigon from the rooftop of the US embassy amply demonstrated, and that, therefore it was first and above all a military defeat inflicted on the imperial armies (and their puppets) by the Vietnamese people that created the necessary conditions for a “pragmatic rethinking of the war” by its architects back in the imperial capital. Haven’t we seen this terrible movie before?

The reason for the book thus lies in the utterly deformed political landscape presented by contemporary America, where the left, unlike any other in the developed capitalist world (except for the anglo-cultural zone nations that resemble it) has apparently adopted pacifism as the one and only method of “opposing” the empire. Consistent with the pervasiveness of this view, and to justify such narrow policy, many US progressives have embraced a literal idolatry of nonviolence, elevating the tactics and accomplishments of figures such as Ghandi and Dr. King to near infallibility, and believing (wrongly in the eyes of the author and this writer) that moral suasion alone is capable of liquidating well-entrenched institutionalized violence and inequality…

Indeed, one of the things that make this volume especially provocative (and valuable) is that the question of violence vs. nonviolence is not only debated by Churchill, an academic, but also by Ed Mead, who wrote the book’s introduction, and who was himself a participant in what was at the time an attempt at armed struggle.

Edward Allen Mead was one of the young political activists of the 1960s and 1970s whose frustration and rage drove them to resort to violence. He joined the George Jackson Brigade, a guerrilla group that blew up supermarkets, car dealerships, a power station, and other symbols of the system it was bent on destroying. To finance its operations, the Brigade robbed banks. A 1976 bank robbery in Tukwila, Washington, culminated in a shootout in which Mead and another Brigade member were captured. A third member was killed, and a fourth escaped but was later apprehended. Mead received a thirty-year Federal sentence for bank robbery and a forty-year state sentence for first-degree assault on a police officer, though neither of the officers in the shootout was hit.

Mead never abandoned his radical politics, but he did decide that violence was not the way to bring about change at that particular juncture. With the benefit of hindsight he told a reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “I really know how wrong it was to do what I did. Not because it’s legally wrong, but because it was just a great political mistake. You want things to happen so bad that you throw yourself into it. Today, I do it with a pen and a computer. . . .It’s about what works.”  While time may have mellowed Mead a bit, he remains quite lucid (and some would say adamant) about the options facing the younger generations of would-be world-changers.

“I think that we can agree that the exploited are everywhere and that they are angry. The question of violence and our own direct experience of it is something we will not be able to avoid when the righteous rage of the oppressed manifests itself in increasingly focused and violent forms [this was said in 1997]. When this time comes, it is likely that white pacifists will be the ruling class’ first line of defense.”

Later, zeroing in on his main contention, that the use or non-use of violence is a tactic, not a rigid article of faith good for all seasons, Mead declares:

“I have talked about violence in connection with political struggle for a long time and I’ve engaged in it. I see myself as one who incorrectly applied the tool of revolutionary violence during a period when its use was not appropriate. In doing so, my associates and I paid a terrible price…I served nearly two decades behind bars as a result of armed actions conducted by the George Jackson Brigade. During those years I studied and restudied the mechanics and applicability of both violence and noviolence to political struggle. I’ve had plenty of time to learn how to step back and take a look at the larger picture. And, however badly I may represent that picture today, I still find one conclusion inescapable: Pacifism as a strategy of achieving social, political and economic change can only lead to the dead end of liberalism.”

One last point. The struggle against an unjust social order is always bound to be complicated and morally blurry. Still,  I believe that if the Chilean, Argentinean and Uruguayan people had been privately armed to the level Americans are, the imposition of fascistic military rule in those nations would have been a lot more difficult.  With weapons in almost every home, the death toll probably would have been much higher, but it would have been an all-out civil war, not a massacre of the innocents. Take your pick.

Conclusion

When it comes to the use of force, there are no absolutes and no easy answers. Only “situational” answers. The existence of guns —not to mention sophisticated weaponry—represents in all spheres and latitudes the failure of human civilization.  Guns and weapons in general have never existed in a historical vacuum. The violence of guns issues from social sickness, rooted in profound and widely institutionalized ignorance, poverty and injustice, and above all, the fracture of the human family into two classes, one bent on exploiting the other. Till we deal with these root causes, and stamp them out decisively, these scourges will remain with us.

In America, gun-control activists have advanced a variety of proposals. Some are eminently sensible and quite moderate in their demands: simply that weapons designed for the battlefield should not be licensed for “sport” or home protection. Wherever one may stand on this issue, it’s clear that an honest national debate is long overdue, but such debate is not likely to happen as long as a corrupt Congress in the pocket of the NRA, the gun lobby, and a paranoid right preclude a rational examination of what it means to have guns freely circulating throughout a nation as sick and explosively divided as the United States in the first decades of the 21st century.

Patrice Greanville is The Greanville Post‘s editor in chief.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Suggested by Gloria  Stevenson
 

A couple of weeks ago the Northeast was in the grip of a severe heat wave. As I write this, however, it’s a fairly cool day in New Jersey, considering that it’s late July. Weather is like that; it fluctuates.

And this banal observation may be what dooms us to climate catastrophe, in two ways. On one side, the variability of temperatures from day to day and year to year makes it easy to miss, ignore or obscure the longer-term upward trend. On the other, even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events — like the devastating drought now gripping America’s heartland — that do vast damage.

On the first point: Even with the best will in the world, it would be hard for most people to stay focused on the big picture in the face of short-run fluctuations. When the mercury is high and the crops are withering, everyone talks about it, and some make the connection to global warming. But let the days grow a bit cooler and the rains fall, and inevitably people’s attention turns to other matters.

Making things much worse, of course, is the role of players who don’t have the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry, lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability is one of the key tricks of that industry’s trade. Applications range from the Fox News perennial — “It’s cold outside! Al Gore was wrong!” — to the constant claims that we’re experiencing global cooling, not warming, because it’s not as hot right now as it was a few years back.

How should we think about the relationship between climate change and day-to-day experience? Almost a quarter of a century ago James Hansen, the NASA scientist who did more than anyone to put climate change on the agenda, suggested the analogy of loaded dice. Imagine, he and his associates suggested, representing the probabilities of a hot, average or cold summer by historical standards as a die with two faces painted red, two white and two blue. By the early 21st century, they predicted, it would be as if four of the faces were red, one white and one blue. Hot summers would become much more frequent, but there would still be cold summers now and then.

And so it has proved. As documented in a new paper by Dr. Hansen and others, cold summers by historical standards still happen, but rarely, while hot summers have in fact become roughly twice as prevalent. And 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.

But that’s not all: really extreme high temperatures, the kind of thing that used to happen very rarely in the past, have now become fairly common. Think of it as rolling two sixes, which happens less than 3 percent of the time with fair dice, but more often when the dice are loaded. And this rising incidence of extreme events, reflecting the same variability of weather that can obscure the reality of climate change, means that the costs of climate change aren’t a distant prospect, decades in the future. On the contrary, they’re already here, even though so far global temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical norms, a small fraction of their eventual rise if we don’t act.

The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world’s breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events have happened before, but they’re much more likely now than they used to be.

Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term “Dust-Bowlification” for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will come later.

And here it comes.

Will the current drought finally lead to serious climate action? History isn’t encouraging. The deniers will surely keep on denying, especially because conceding at this point that the science they’ve trashed was right all along would be to admit their own culpability for the looming disaster. And the public is all too likely to lose interest again the next time the die comes up white or blue.

But let’s hope that this time is different. For large-scale damage from climate change is no longer a disaster waiting to happen. It’s happening now.

Paul Krugman writes a regular column for The New York Times. We’d like him to come out four-square for the outright retirement of capitalism, but of course that kind of frank expression would swiftly produce his dismissal from the Times and any other bourgeois platforms where he’s presently published. Also, his castigations of the Democrats and Obama, their standardbearer for the moment, are deafening for their silence. Tsk. Tsk. I suppose beggars can’t be choosy about their champions.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

By Shamus Cooke, Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)

The heat wave has helped convince tens of millions of Americans that climate change is real, overpowering the fake science and right-wing media – funded by corporate cash – to convince Americans otherwise.

The U.S. heat wave is slowly shaking the foundations of American politics. It may take years for the deep rumble to evolve into an above ground, institution-shattering earthquake, but U.S. society has changed for good. 

The heat wave has helped convince tens of millions of Americans that climate change is real, overpowering the fake science and right-wing media – funded by corporate cash – to convince Americans otherwise.

Republicans and Democrats alike also erect roadblocks to understanding climate change. By the politicians’ complete lack of action towards addressing the issue, the “climate change is fake” movement was strengthened, since Americans presumed that any sane government would be actively trying to address an issue that had the potential to destroy civilization.

But working people have finally made up their mind. A recent poll showed that70 percent of Americans now believe that climate change is real, up from 52 percent in 2010. And a growing number of people are recognizing that the warming of the planet is caused by human activity.

Business Week explains: “A record heat wave, drought and catastrophic wildfires are accomplishing what climate scientists could not: convincing a wide swath of Americans that global temperatures are rising.”

This means that working class families throughout the Midwest and southern states simply don’t believe what their media and politicians are telling them.

It also implies that these millions of Americans are being further politicized in a deeper sense. Believing that climate change exists implies that you are somewhat aware about the massive consequences to humanity if the global economy doesn’t drastically change, and fast.

This awareness has revolutionary implications. As millions of Americans watch the environment destroyed – for their grandchildren or themselves – while politicians do absolutely nothing in response, or make tiny token gestures – a growing number of Americans will demand political alternatives, and fight to see them created. The American political system as it exists today cannot cope with this inevitable happening.

The New York Times explains why: “…the American political system is not ready to agree to a [climate] treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy [coal, oil], transport [trucking and airline industry] and manufacturing [corporate] sectors.”

In short, the U.S. government will not force corporations to make less profit by behaving more eco-friendly. This is the essence of the problem.

In order for humanity to survive climate change, the economy must be radically transformed; massive investments must be made in renewable energy, public transportation, and recycling, while dirty energy sources must be quickly swept into the dustbin of history.

But the economy is currently owned by giant, privately run corporations, that will continue destroying the earth if it earns them huge profits, and they make massive “contributions” to political parties to ensure this remains so. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that government inaction on climate change is directly linked to the “special interests” of corporations that dominate these governments.

This fact of U.S. politics is present in every other capitalist country as well, which means that international agreements on reducing greenhouse gasses will remain impossible, as each country’s corporations vie for market domination, reducing pollution simply puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

This dynamic has already caused massive delays in the UN’s already inadequate efforts at addressing climate change. The Kyoto climate agreement was the by-product of years of cooperation and planning between many nations that included legally binding agreements to reduce greenhouse gasses. The Bush and Obama administrations helped destroy these efforts.

For example, Instead of building upon the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole new structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework (itself insufficient) was abandoned because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on multilateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses.

In an article by the Guardian entitled  ” US Planning to Weaken Copenhagen Climate Deal,” the Obama administration’s UN position is exposed, as he dismisses the Kyoto Protocol by proposing that “”each country set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target.”

Obama’s proposal came straight from the mouth of U.S. corporations, who wanted to ensure that there was zero accountability, zero oversight, zero climate progress, and therefore no dent to their profits. Instead of using its massive international leverage for climate justice, the U.S. has used it to promote divisiveness and inaction, to the potential detriment of billions of people globally.

The stakes are too high to hold out any hope that governments will act boldly. The Business Week article below explains the profound changes happening to the climate:

“The average temperature for the U.S. during June was 71.2 degrees Fahrenheit (21.7 Celsius), which is 2 degrees higher than the average for the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The June temperatures made the preceding 12 months the warmest since record-keeping began in 1895, the government agency said.”

Activists who are radicalized by this global problem face a crisis of what to do about it. It is difficult to put forth a positive climate change demand, since the problem is global.  Demanding that governments “act boldly” to address climate change hasn’t worked, and lesser demands seem inadequate.

The environmental rights movement continues to go through a variety of phases: individual and small group eco-“terrorism,” causing property damage to environmentally damaging companies; corporate campaigns that target especially bad polluters with high-profile direct action; and massive education programs that have been highly successful, but fall short when it comes to winning change.

Ultimately, climate activists must come face to face with political and corporate power. Corporate-owned governments are the ones with the power to adequately address the climate change issue, and they will not be swayed by good science, common sense, basic decency, or even a torched planet.

Those in power only respond to power, and the only power capable of displacing corporate power is when people unite and act collectively, as was done in Egypt, Tunisia, and is still developing throughout Europe.

Climate groups cannot view their issue as separate from other groups that are organizing against corporate power. The social movements that have emerged to battle austerity measures are natural allies, as are anti-war and labor activists. The climate solution will inevitably require revolutionary measures, which first requires that alliances and demands are put forward that unite Labor, working people in general, community, and student groups towards collective action.

One possible immediate demand is for environmental activists to unite with Labor groups over a federal jobs program, paid  for by taxing the rich, that makes massive investments in jobs that are climate related, such as solar panel production, transportation, building recycling centers, home retro-fitting, etc.

Another demand could be to insist that the government convene the most knowledgeable scientists in the area of clean energy. These scientists should be given all the resources they need in order to collectively create alternative sources of clean energy that would allow for a realistic alternative to the current polluting and toxic sources of energy.

However, any type of immediate demand will meet giant corporate resistance from both political parties. Fighting for a uniting demand will thus strengthen the movement, and for this reason it is important to link climate solutions to the creation of jobs, which are the number one concern of most Americans. This unity will in turn lead allies toward a deeper understanding of the problem, and therefore deeper solutions will emerge that challenge the whole economic structure that is deaf to the needs of humans and the climate and sacrifices everything to the private profit of a few.

 ________________________

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org), living in Portland Oregon.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-dot-s-dot-belief-in-climate-change-to-70-percent

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/weekinreview/13broder.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

By Phil Rockstroh 

M. Bachmann, Palin, Rand Paul and many other icons of the Right personify the inherent denialist selfish nature of conservatism, but many Americans practice similar values without thinking themselves on the right, many even believe they are liberals (not that good either.)

“Large numbers, perhaps even the majority of people of the nation, have applied their energies and talents to avoiding change; they labor, moment by moment, day by day, to construct and dwell within a mundane, confining architecture that passes for normalcy. These types see change as a home invasion. They stand dour and vigilant, armed to their clinched teeth, guarding over their accouterments of mammon. Winged Liberty herself is seen as a demon, borne from Hell on leathery wings…”

Often, the world…forever unfolding, recombining, morphing, dying and transforming…changes before the mind can grasp the implications of the ongoing alterations. This is the basis of nostalgia, for memory freezes the world like an insect encased in amber.

Maturity dawns when you begin to look back at your life and long to be able to make amends for your blindness. Because changing the past is impossible, it follows to strive to possess a greater degree of self-awareness in the present. By this measure, we, the people of the U.S., insulated in the eternal present of our media hologramatic bubble and in the thrall of perpetual post-adolescent-level self-involvement, have some growing up to do.  

Circumstances change, people change, yet the people of the U.S. cling to an outmoded and ossified view of themselves, their nation, and the world at large…but events keep moving right along. For example, given the degree of danger, and by danger, I mean, global wide, species (including our own) devastation, begot by Industrial Age-engendered Climate Chaos — we cannot afford to go about business as usual.

On consideration of the path we are heading down, at exponentially increasing speed, uprising (engendered by mortification and propelled by outrage) would appear to be an appropriate course of action. If you were embarked on a journey across the high seas and discovered the captain and his officers were all suicidal madmen — then mutiny would be a viable option.

The data is in: The oceans of the earth are dying; the very air is bedizened with seeds of fire.

This is not gray beard, flapping in the meaningless breeze, prophecy; this is  verifiable, peer-reviewed science. The time for discussion and debate has passed. Only fools, cranks, and greed-besotted psychotics doubt the effect that trapped greenhouse gasses are reaping across the planet. We no longer have the luxury of indulging their corporate age form of blindness and insanity.

America, take a look out the window…risk taking in the passing scene.

However, rather than doing so, we draw the curtains tight and reach for the TV remote or a host of other insulating electronic devices that serve to circumvent self-examination. We turn away in denial or rage in belligerent ignorance, because we see the world moving on, and we cannot control the situation…no matter how many predator drones we have scouring the globe. Increasingly, we feel uneasy, for we see events are changing fast — and, as the momentum of events propel us through time, we are not yet ready to accept the fact, but know deep within us, that we cannot remain the people that we are.

Grasping the reality of one’s situation can be painful. Those in the U.S. still clinging to the tattered myths of late stage capitalism would be hurt and angry, if they came to realize the amount of corporate state propaganda that they have internalized…that has allowed for their exploitation by a ruthless, unaccountable few e.g., the fairy tale of upward class migration. Ergo, the relentless, all-pervasive manner in which well-funded operatives of the rightwing wage class warfare. For example, the noxious canard asserting welfare layabouts have sponged up your fair share of hard wrought earnings. In this way, the bigot whispers of the capitalist state have created a mean-spirited, punitive cosmology that serves to emotionally displace anger. And these tropes of demagogic displacement are quite lucrative to its accomplished practitioners e.g., Rush Limbaugh.

The winners/losers mythos of capitalism renders people sick with shame while its tendency towards class stratification promotes feelings of powerlessness and unfocussed rage; hence, many develop a compulsion to displace their frustrations. Withal, they evince the mindset of embittered slaves who have been told, and worse insist, that the corporatist/militarist boot on their necks is better termed a Liberty Massage; they seethe with displaced projections on people that they perceive to be layabouts, when, in fact, by these projections, they are displaying a type of envy. These perceived loafers (i.e., imaginary beings, who are, seemingly,  as troublesome, yet as hard to locate as fairy folk) are getting away with something — while you have to slave away, toiling for the obscene profits of a privileged elite who think those below them are fools for swallowing whole the propaganda they promulgate about this imaginary, miracle system known as free market capitalism, which never has worked (and never will work) as advertised, because it never has and never will exist. Moreover, given the reality of Democratic/Republican duopoly in place to protect the interest of the moneyed classes, we will not be able to vote our way out of this situation.

I know my assertion that one’s vote is worse than meaningless (Caveat: It is flat-out meaningful to those who rigged the game by providing the system with the illusion of being legit.) is bound to evoke, in some, feelings of angst, because the assertion points out the hopelessness of the situation. Good. Hope is the snake oil sold to suckers at the traveling medicine show/cheap carnival of this faux democratic republic. What the ruling elite fear is the audacity of hopelessness — because that is when citizens see through the illusions created by their exploiters and rise up and destroy the house of mirrors of the status quo.

Believing you’re contributing to the greater good by the act of voting in this big money-controlled, sham republic…is like donating your blood to a blood bank owned by vampires.

The last, best way that we, as a nation, can endure…is to challenge social convention and political boilerplate (each and every calcified cliché and soul-defying platitude) at all levels. Change arrives when heart and mind open to new understandings. There is a time-proven approach to this: Begin to admit the fact that our understandings involving ourselves and our place in the world have come to the end of the line…only an abyss yawns before us; that our actions are no longer viable, thus we must risk exposure to novelty. Naturally, grief will come with the letting go of shopworn habits and the death of cherished illusions; although, a rebirth of wonder and a renewal of vision will arrive as well.

“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, from Crime and Punishment

On an historical basis, those who cling to the exhausted verities of this fading epoch will be viewed in a comparable light to those obtuse denizens of the 16th Century who refused to let go (and ruthlessly strove to make miserable — or worse — those who challenged prevailing cultural illusions) of the fallacy of the ‪Geocentric model of the universe. Like their Flat-Earther forbearers, our present day virtuosos of denial (e.g., climate change skeptics and capitalist rah-rahs) their names and their demented dogmas will, in years to come, become axiomatic of hubris, denial, and catastrophic conceit.  ‬

When an individual clings to pride-petrified notions about himself, he is being held in the thrall of the viewpoint of a person who no longer exists; in the same way, when one parrots nationalistic platitudes, one dwells on a mental basis in a country that does not exists, and, in fact, never did.

The nations of the earth are teeming with people who dwell in The Land Of Never Was. (Shortly, these traits will be on grotesque, flag-waving, spandex-clad display during the coming Olympic games.)

The world is in constant flux and our understanding of it can never be wholly accurate. However, this does not mean we’re absolved from making the attempt, and we should not allow a convenient cynicism to hold us in its dismal thrall. By doing so, we diminish our lives and by extension the world.

To know the world, first, we must resolve to undertake a scrupulous inventory of our own beliefs and intentions, both on display and veiled deep within. Transformation begins to unfold as the result of an honest apprehension of one’s situation; tragedy descends from the habitual avoidance of doing so.

Still, as waning moments flow into the waxing present, change comes to pass, by means of a single new apprehension by a single individual.

A number of years ago, a man, a recovering drunk, told me what circumstances led him to cast aside the bottle. Most mornings, he said, in the grip of a hangover, to prevent his wife and young children from hearing his sounds of retching, he would slip from the house in order to vomit. It was his habit to shuffle to the backyard, drop to his knees, and, obscured by a row of scrub brush, he would do the deed.

One morning, while in the midst of his grim routine, he heard a rustling to his right. There, on his knees beside him, knelt his three year old son…imitating his father’s actions. Stricken with shock and anguish, the man vowed that he would not bequeath this legacy to his son.

Often, the knowledge that our selfish actions are placing those we love at risk can jolt us into awareness…can serve as a catalyst for change. In a universal sense, at this perilous juncture for humankind, it is imperative that we begin to love the world with the ardor, compassion, and sense of responsibility that rises within when looking upon the face of things beloved. We must embrace this task, because our planet, due to the blindness and selfishness inherent to late capitalism, is in deep trouble.

“Love is stronger than death and harder than hell” -Meister Eckhart

Large numbers, perhaps even the majority of people of the nation, have applied their energies and talents to avoiding change; they labor, moment by moment, day by day, to construct and dwell within a mundane, confining architecture that passes for normalcy. These types see change as a home invasion. They stand dour and vigilant, armed to their clinched teeth, guarding over their accouterments of mammon. Winged Liberty herself is seen as a demon, borne from Hell on leathery wings.

Pay little mind to their little minds. Write your story across eternal skies, as you put one foot in front of the next, sojourning in the direction of meaning. Yes, you’ll pass many of these poor souls as you proceed along, and they will detest you. Your mere presence threatens to reveal to them what they have forsaken in the name of safety…that their conception of what is normal, sane, decent, and patriotic has deadened their spirit. By merely passing by, you threaten to stir up the dust of their desiccated hearts.

To emerge from the imprisonment of habitual thought…is to set forth into an uncertain world, to allow your heart to be pierced by time’s arrow.

It is through this wound — that is the womb bearing your rebirth — you will reemerge into life. You will navigate this novel landscape…learning its roads, paths and landmarks, and, as time passes, you will not only accept the reality that you cannot return to the irretrievable past, but you will be mortified at the very thought of being re-entombed in it.

 ______________

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: phil@philrockstroh.com .  Visit Phil at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.