Skip to main content

Preparing for an uncertain future

I see a few posts on Facebook that indicate people see our future as being decided by the Harper government. I use that term because the Conservative party and Canada's democracy have been destroyed by this PM who proudly bragged we would not recognize Canada when he finished with it.

We were warned by so many quotes that he would turn us into a Republican branch plant - a petro state that Chris Hedges describes as intentionally destructive:
Extraction industries, like wars, empower a predominantly male, predatory population that is engaged in horrific destruction and violence. Wars and extraction industries are designed to extinguish all systems that give life—familial, social, cultural, economic, political and environmental. And they require the obliteration of community and the common good.
Jennifer Hinton describes the Greek Crisis as being the result of a parasite which "… comes from the surplus of the system (profit) being taken out of the real economy (the economy of physical goods and services) and put into the financial sector to generate more wealth for people who are already wealthy. This requires the economy to continually grow to compensate for the extraction of profit, which is essentially the extraction of the economy’s surplus."

So the economy in this case no longer serves the society that creates it. If Capitalism destroys societies how will it sustain itself? And is it really fascism in sheep's clothing?

A quote attributed to  Tommy Douglas, says "Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.” 

Democracy and the kind of social responsibility which enables our freedom is clearly under threat in Europe, the US, Canada and other nations. But a percentage of the population will not see it that way.

Perhaps I am over simplifying - but it seems to me that Harper's base are those who have lived under the canopy of several absolutes:
  1. that the white man is inherently superior, 
  2. that men are more reasonable than women 
  3. that religion is necessary to maintain morality
  4. that punishment is required to keep people on the right path
  5. that capitalism is the natural vehicle for our economy
  6. that Canada is a Christian country. 
For these beliefs to sustain themselves a mind must avoid straying beyond these tenets - to explore is dangerous, to think is heresy. 

Christianity has been usurped and corrupted as a kind of manufactured spiritually-gated community to support the power and privilege of a ruling elite. In these cases it is no longer about Jesus and his teachings, or the insights of Biblical prophets.  This is not Christianity at all. It is not about good orderly direction in the Universe. It is not about virtue or humanity. It is a means to control minds and to keep the masses living in fear. It was the instrument that Hitler used, and that South Africa used to sustain apartheid. It is the way that war and violence has been glorified for the ambitions of colonial and imperial states.

As Chris Hedges, who is also a minister of a Christian church, reminds us: "There is nothing inevitable about human existence except birth and death. There are no forces, whether divine or technical, that will guarantee us a better future. When we give up false hopes, when we see human nature and history for what they are, when we accept that progress is not preordained, then we can act with an urgency and passion that comprehends the grim possibilities ahead." 

It is time to act, not simply accept the status quo. There is a responsibility we have to find a way to contribute to the future with the particular skills we have. To use our knowledge and art to present a different way of being. To pool our resources so that these skills are offered as an extension of our selves within our society. This is the way we contribute to our survival. We do what we can and if we are not sure we can we try it.

Judging, shaming and blaming is a waste of energy unless it leads to our action to fix that which we see is wrong. There is no righteousness in texting or twittering if we can't ask ourselves what can be done about it.
We are not required to change the world tomorrow, but let's not dismiss our capacity to meet and talk sincerely with one another about what and how we can apply our knowledge to the problem.

Voting, protesting, marching, carrying banners all have their place in revolution, but there is another step beyond that. Becoming the piece in the puzzle to support and sustain what is life revering. It means offering alternative views without name-calling, insulting and de-humanizing others.

It means researching the right information, questioning our own prejudices, interrogating our own privileges.
It means compassion. 


  1. It means offering alternative views without name-calling, insulting and de-humanizing others. Does this suggest that you will be "offering alternative views" in future posts?

    1. That would be a good idea. However I was thinking that it would be good to have person to person meetings to talk about the options. We often have dinner guests and go to friends homes for dinner - we could make them, as long as there was agreement from all who attend and host, discussion on the future of our nation. At the moment I censor my thoughts and "behave" by not expressing all my opinions.


    1. Yes love this especially "We believe that the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths."


Post a Comment

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…