Skip to main content

Requiem for a Nation (reposted)

This post was first published in May 2011 just after the Federal Election. I re-blog to revisit my thoughts during that time, as the 2015 elections approach and the stakes seem much higher. The world has become even more barbaric and suffering globally and nationally more evident. 

In spite of all the efforts of good people to inform the public, 40 % of voters chose the party that promised to deplete  the programs that make us rich with a quality of life such as good education, health care, social services to help those at risk, programs that promote civic engagement.  

Over the last thirty years we have seen how the natural wealth and beauty of this country have been eroded in the name of the "economy", and we have watched our leaders become vague on policy in exchange for populist slogans. The air waves are filled with entertainments where discourse used to be. And we have seen how nations have scuttled out of environmental stewardship.

Politics has become another new product. It can't be complicated with real issues that will make voters seem uninformed. It musn't make them feel stressed or pressured. It must be easy, make them feel superior, that their prejudices are right and their intuitions on track. The campaign must be shiny and slippery. 

Sure there have been other voices alerting us to the danger ahead, giving us statistics, calling out errors made by the government, and even though they didn't get much in mainstream coverage they got the majority of votes. But not enough for our first past the post system.

Canadians did not win, the military industrial complex did. That vast and resounding voice that comes through hundreds of TV's and most corporate sponsored newspapers, that huge global propaganda machine, that ideology that we must worship profit instead of people, was the great winner tonight. And that isn't hard because sub-consciously we all sense where power is invested and it's much safer to get behind the bully rather than confront him.

Hidden behind the pre-packaged images and formatted perceptions, the real world will continue to unravel. There will be more unemployment, more homelessness, more domestic violence. Beyond the facade of morality, abortions will be illegal, purportedly to save the unborn who will be left to starve once they are born. Our youth will be sent to war in countries they have never heard of for reasons they'll never know. Prisons will be filled with conscientious objectors tortured by the criminals in charge. And the earth with its inhabitants will die a slow death through poisoning.

This may sound too far fetched, but consider the difference thirty years has made in our expectations of what a functioning democracy means. A good standard of living where we thought hard work and education would pay off, where we expected our government and corporations, guided by reason and knowledge, worked for the people. Remember when we thought we lived in a fair and progressive country full of people who had risen above prejudice and racism?

What was it that changed? People or the theatre of  information we are bombarded with?  What instruments and strategies have been at play to make us believe people (and when we say people we mean other) have become stupid? 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we are no longer in a friendly beautiful place, but a place that has been co-opted, extracted, re-interpreted by power interests that feed us what they want us to feel.

What has happened is that power has been centralized and life is merely its meat. What has happened is we do not see the ways we are manipulated because we can't see the strategies used against us.

Before we can win back democracy we must examine and interrogate this power that we have enabled, that has become the monster. To believe in our own power to change the world for the better is a good start.


Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.

In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…