Skip to main content

The Field Mouse

Continuing on the theme of the new class system described in an earlier post, and subsequent descriptions of the anthro-hyena and the gate-beaver, this is a look at that faceless, nameless group known as the masses, which I call field mice. 

Field Mice are focused on survival. Caring for and protecting our families we barely have time to look at the big picture. We are running as fast as we can to keep up with trends, pay our bills, forage for food, and most importantly - keep away from predators.

The resilient field mouse has learned how to cope with different landscapes in different climates and different economic systems. The field mouse, driven to provide for his or her family, has learned how to be a good soldier, a skilled welder, or a gentle nurse. 

Profiling the field mouse as integral is counter-productive in a system built on exploitation and so their value is undermined through myth and story, where they are shown as  confused, stupid, shallow, undisciplined and self-interested.

In a recent rabble column, Rick Salutin  cites political philosopher Leo Strauss, "who lived through Hitler's rise, concluded that most people are and always will be basically emotional and for their own good must be manipulated by their betters through religion and deceit..."

Could it be true that the masses hold most of the power through numbers alone? When they aspire to get higher on the social ladder by copying anthro-hyenas and gate-beavers, do they lower their worth, precisely because they disgard their inherent truths for the lies that oppress them?

All the world's wars, that generation after generation find new enemies, have not been about finding peace, but keeping the field mice in uniform, in step and in service to those who profit by their blood, sweat and tears.

The nature of all members of the new class system are not hard-wired into the brain - we can learn to create better worlds by examining our own investment in the status quo and by interrogating the myths we look to for comfort. But will we? Will we give up our fleeting inventories of superiority for the survival of our planet, or descend into a final righteous bloodletting to the end?


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…