What should we be doing?
What should we be doing, in the face of the multiple crises facing humanity? Should we be organizing politically?…storming the barricades?…packing a survivalist kit?…joining a sustainable community? Or do we just get what we can from the system, for ourselves and our family, and not worry about “things we can’t change”? Do we even ask ourselves such questions? Are we in a state of denial?
rex and rml have brought up these kinds of questions in their recent comments to the posting, “What’s likely to happen over the next few months?” The two topics are certainly related, but I think our dialog would proceed more productively if we give each its own thread, one exploring "the problem" and the other "the solution."
To that purpose, I’ll relocate those previous comments over to this thread, leaving both threads with a clearer focus.
Don’t be afraid to throw in your two cents,
rkm
posted by rkm @ 6:27 AM
10 comments
links to this post
10 Comments:
These comments were copied over from a previous posting
- - -
rex said…
It would be nice to feel assured that the slide will deposit us safely at the bottom. Unfortunately, the slide we’re on is speeding us to an unknowable future, so our most important task is to be as prepared as we can be for whatever happens and try to make sure that everything we do might contribute to a safe landing for everyone!
The only way I know of to help assure that outcome is for us to talk with as many people as we can manage about our plans & try to harmonize our ideas with as many others as possible before we act on them.
3:44 PM
- - -
rex said…
As I understand harmonization, factionalism is not as possible outcome! Harmonization is a process that continues until harmony is reached. Action is something that occurs when it must occur (even if everyone [an imposible goal!] is not yet in harmony!
9:21 PM
- - -
rml said…
What if we move from the slide to the jungle-gym? Hanging upside down, with that rush of fresh blood to the head, we can now see that all that is unfolding -- much of which appears as if it is chaotic and at best bungling -- is in fact by design. That "their" Plan (!) is on track, and the world-wide (expected) reactions are within their statistical parameters.
Their "planning and feasibility" contractors are well-aware of the components of the schema. To list but a few: The 4th Turning; hoary astrology and Cycles; the Matrix; the Mayans; Insider "leaking" of plans (e.g., Warren Buffet); China as wild card; Euro as reserve currency (Dinar next? Precious Metal-backed currencies?); Clash of Civilizations finishing the last crusade); Mandatory draft of the illegal immigration pool; Destruction/elimination of African males; Solar flares; Dr. Jacque Vallee; Aerosol spraying (chemtrails); Operation Blue Beam & the Aquarian paradigm; the Kali Yuga; Planet 2; Crop Circles; The Plan 2000 (ARMAGEDDON). . . the list goes on and on.
It would seem then, given what all the "players" are aware of, that
we, as sentients, should have our own "exit" strategy (spiritually, emotionally, and physically). Is there sanctuary? A place prepared?
Are we done with the need to spell it out, to expose this design fantastique that, when implemented, will have us all looking back at this mess with nostalgia?
I must confess, Richard, that I have not read your Matrix book, and obviously should. But, is it possible to snip parts of it here (or, perhaps that’s what you are doing in providing these discussion themes …)? Because it does seem that preaching to the choir, as satisfying as it is, stops our momentum for actually coming to terms with what in the hell we are going to do about their “plan”.
Thanks.
RML
12:44 PM
Here's my t'uppence:
Having read lots of Armageddon oriented sci-fi over the years since, oh, say, junior high back in the sixties and being the social maladroit I've always been, I've looked forward to this all my life. Now that it's actually happening, it scares the crap out of me.
What I do know is that no Government in existence, no matter how much in the know they may be, or believe they are, is up to the task facing them this time.[see: Katrina] There is no way in hell that the US government can competently and peacefully cope with the economic infrastructure crash that appears to be in the works. And we do not have a Franklin Roosevelt in the lead spot this time.
Do I know what the PNAC monsters have up their collective sleeves? No.
I saw a recent 60 Minutes feature about a company that had developed a self injectable antidote for radiation poisoning that was effective. To their surprise and chagrin, the US government after promoting and funding their research, bought only 100K doses and declined to buy more.
Whether this foreshadows anything, I don't know. It is suspicious behaviour.
What I would do if I were you:
Have a contingency plan.
What would you do if you needed to go on an extended camping trip for the next year or two, the day after tommorrow?
Where is a safe place for you to go?
Is where you are, safe already?
(understanding of course that what we think of as safety will be a thing of the past no matter where you go).
Do you have the means to feed, clothe and shelter yourself and those with you? Do you have the means to protect yourself?
Do you have a plan to connect with friends or family members in the event of catastrophic communication failure?
Maybe something concrete this blog could do for its members is to put together a check list of necessites that might make staying alive a somewhat better bet.
I'll work on that tonight and try to get my contribution on here or at least linked. -TK
Hi tk,
re/Katrina. There seem to be two theories on that. The first, which you seem to be assuming, is that we saw incompetence, lack of forsight, etc. The other theory is that we saw a combination of (1) a looting exercise, on the part of Halliburton and others, and (2) a practice run for how to deal with a collapse scenario: treat the victims as criminals; use it as a way to get rid of what Kissinger calls "useless feeders".
I think the two scenarios need to both be looked at and considered. If the latter is valid, that says a lot about what to expect in a collapse scenario.
Either scenario is plausible. That doesn't change the effective outcome for the recipients with the possible exception that there may be organized and agressive efforts to round up and intern
dissenters and troublemakers.
I tend to agree with those who maintain that, no matter what, any organized state cannot hope to achieve anything beyond stalemate when confronted by guerilla warfare.
The notion of an all powerfull state is bullshit and is a propaganda tool of the empire.
If the players behind the scenes are that unbeatable we might all just as well commit suicide.
I don't believe the players are unbeatable, but I don't think that insurgency is a viable option for us. There's no unity in the population, nor is there likely to be, for insurgency, nor even agreement on goals. Insurgent groups, if they arose, would be more likely to fight one another (left vs. right), rather than combining against the regime.
My view is that unity is the really important thing, rather than an insurgent population. If we can all stand together as one, we don't need weapons in our hands. We can stop the machine any time we choose. And with that kind of unity, we'd have many members of the armed forces and government on our side.
Unity would cartainly be an all-powerful force, but it may take more time than we have to achieve it! I know of no way it can be achieved except one person at a time. So let's get started yesterday!!!
we cannot worry about time. things take the time they take. we can do nothing about yesterday, we only have NOW. what is important is that we are reaching for the right things. 'one person at a time'…at one level, yes, this is true, nothing happens until someone acts. but at another level this misses the point…unity is about coming into mutual understanding with others. not one at a time but in groups, where you live. it is really one community at a time.
Yesyes! But even a community is transformed only one indivdidual at time. The only way I know to facilitate unity is to empower others (in community) by making sure each of them knows that I am listening deeply to them because I want to understand their unique viewpoint in order learn from their experience of the reality we all need to learn from. My own experience of that reality will always need input from other viewpoints!
Hi Richard,
We're really kind of back to where we butted heads a few years ago.
I think you were accusing me of "blaming the victim" when I maintained that
societys produced governments, and not vice versa, (which was an idea I
stole from Dostoyevsky) so we deserved what we were afflicted with,
government wise.
It wasn't quite that simple, but you get the idea.
What do you mean when you say Unity? Homogenaeity of purpose or belief or
behaviour or what?
I don't disagree by the way, really, but I'm not sure the word covers the
reality of what it is we do need.
I'm not advocating "insurgency" (another Imperial "buzzword") or armed
insurrection or revolution or anything like that.
I'd like to see us build a society that didn't smell like bums underware,
but what I'm most concerned with in the present day and time (maybe a
product of my living in the belly of the beast and not in Eire land) is
survival in a burgeoning police state. This is no shit Richard. They're
building fucking concentration camps over here. Seriously.
I'm a bit concerned, to put it mildly, so I apologize for being brusque, but
this is really scaring the crap out of me.
That, and I don't think Ghandi died of natural causes, if memory serves.
"We" are not in charge here. We have no voice and no recourse. The courts
are fixed and the police are invading our property at will. Oh, and they
have guns too. We can be put away with no charges and held indefinitely
without trial or right of counsel. And you would like to talk your way out
of this how exactly?
I read a great Solzhenitsyn quote the other day and the gist was that they
used to lay awake at nights in the camps burning with the thought that life
would have been so much differrent if the secret police had had to go out
every night (kicking in doors) facing the distinct possibility of being
killed by the people they were assaulting, which of course they did not have
to worry about since the people had all been disarmed. Stalin saw 100
million die.
This is not an exercise in arcane ideology to me. This is about survival.
I believe that the techniques of concensus building that you have learned
about actually work I think we can build schools that don't actively poison
kids minds or serve the needs of the corporations for illiterate robots.
I think good things are possible, but I also think that if a signifigant
sector of society believes they can shit on the rest of us because they
happen to have the money and the guns and they own the frigging government,
then I think we have to deal with that first.
The kind of 'unity' I'm talking about has to do with what I call harmonization. It's about people engaging in a special kind of dialog, based on respectful listening. The outcome of such dialog is not that everyone agrees, or has the same understanding of global issues. Rather the outcome is about accepting each other as human beings with valid concerns. From that space, people are able to agree on common agendas, even though their general beliefs, values, and religions continue to be quite different: “You don’t need to agree on religion to build a barn together.”
I invite you to take a look at my other blog, Achieving real democracy through harmonization, which presents my ideas about harmonization, and how that could become the basis of cultural and social transformation. I'll send you two (tk & rex) invitations to be Contributors there.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home