Can anyone save us?

And so, it would seem we've come full circle. When we reflect back upon the last few posts, we see that none of the disciplines or institutions that we might expect to come to the rescue can or will.

Science is capable of developing deep, insightful and helpful knowledge, but if we ignore it, we do so at our own peril.

Technology can solve lots of problems, but not all problems, and it is up to us to help it decide what's worthwhile and what is not.

Politics has become beholden to special interests, but it is we, the populus who have reneged on our responsibility to get involved and keep their noses to the wheel.

It should be clear that "the market", as it is currently practiced, is simply a degenerate extension of the political sphere. Money can never be the measure of anything, but we have essentially turned it into a god in its own right.

Turning the "religious" corner, we see that Jesus showed us the way, and he admonished us to follow suit, but we've chosen to ignore that.

And God, if He exists, according to His own accounting, told us all that if we don't do it, nobody else will.

This is where is all comes together. Regardless of whether we're religious or not, believers or atheists, in the end, we're all in this together. Regardless of what we may think is true and right, at bottom, we're all in this together. When all is said and done, there is no outside force, power or agency that can, or will, suddenly step in and snatch us from the jaws of destruction.

No, if anything at all is to be done or can possibly be done, we have no choice: we -- you, me, our families, everyone we know and don't know -- are the only ones who can do anything at all.

We have already raced past the crossroads, but it may be that we can backtrack far enough to take the other road. Whether we do or not doesn't depend on anyone or anything other than ourselves. As Pogo put it so aptly so long ago, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

If this enemy is to be defeated, however, only we can do it. Who's up for the challenge?

Can God save us?

This is the trickiest question of all. I mean, after all, the Big Guy (according to the legend) put us here, so he can take us out anytime He pleases (which he did once, according to the text: see the Story of Noah), and according to the believers, absolutely everything is in His hands. The atheists and non-theists among you will quickly retort, quite consistently, that He doesn't exist, so He isn't going to be doing anything. That may or may not be true. We cannot know for sure. Regardless of what you believe (there is or there is no God), it is simply a matter of belief. You can't prove it one way or the other. So, in one respect, this simply removes God from the equation.

There are a lot of people who believe in God or some kind of god or gods or the like. Truth be told, it is the majority of humanity. For that very reason, we cannot simply discard the God question out of hand. For that reason alone, it deserves to be taken seriously, regardless of how intolerant militant atheists can be. I certainly don't agree with a lot of people, but I do try to make an effort to understand why they think what they think and why they believe what they believe, and I am extremely hesitant to tell them flat out that their full of crap. (Unfortunately, this seems to be the preferred argumentation modus of our militant-atheist friends.)

Given the large sphere of influence of and my own upbringing within the Abrahamic Traditions, I'll restrict myself to that one perspective. (I believe, however, that mutatis mutandis everything I have to say applies outside this context as well, but that's another blog for another time.) We are told in the Good Book, Part I (Old Testament), right up front (1st book, Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2, in particular the latter) that we (that is, humankind) were put here to be the caretakers of this world. We might have screwed up and got kicked out of headquarters (the Garden of Eden), but we weren't fired; we still had the job, we just had to do it out here where all of us all. We're doing a pretty sorry job of it, too.

Granted, even God got fed up and washed the slate clean (literally), but He told us he wouldn't do that anymore, and from then on out -- according to the text -- he repeated sent this, that, or the other guy (or gal ... there are lots of stories in the Bible in which the female plays a decisive role) to remind us of what we actually should be doing. But, He told us flat out, He wasn't going to intervene so directly. The way I read the text and see the big picture, then, we've been passed the buck. The way I see how things have been developing, especially in the last couple of hundred years, though, we want to pretend like we don't have it ... never heard of it ... and that's why we are in the straits we are in. We've lost sight of our job description. We're not doing our job.

Can Jesus save us?

OK, OK, it's quite obvious how my Christian brethren will respond to this one: with a resounding Yes! or He already did!, but unfortunately, we have not evidence for that. They may be right, but if they are, it's a guess. I know they like to pull in the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) for "proof", but you can't declare that the Bible's the Word of God, then use the Bible to prove that it is. That's called circular reasoning. Now, if you want to tell me that this is what you believe, then I'm behind you 100%. You are free to believe it, but always keep in mind, it's a belief, not a proven truth (or Truth, for you metaphysicans out there).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the guy. I'm not all so keen on many of his followers, but what he had to say and the example that he set is precisely what I would expect from a guy in his position. When we look at what the Gospels (those are the first four books of the New Testament for those of you not so familiar with the source texts) have to say, I'm not sure that his death is so much more important than his life. I read it the other way around.

It was Jesus' forerunner (Wegbereiter, in German; that is, literally "path preparer"), John the Baptist, who put it best: "Metanoeite, metanoeite, the Kingdom of God is at hand." (I threw in the Greek word there, because there's no one single, best translation of the word. Coming in from the Latin, we end up with "repent". That is obviously a loaded word, especially for non-religious types (and there is no reason to think that Jesus -- or John, for that matter -- intended to exclude anyone at all). Luther translated it better, in my humble opinion: "turn around" (in German, kehr um (and this fits well with things that Jesus did say later about the Kingdom of God, namely that it was near, at hand, and well, within you). But, when we look at the Greek word itself, apart from any theological or Christological interpretation schemes, the word simply means "change your mind" or, said differently, "change the way you think".

This is consistent with everything else that Jesus said and did. He spent his time with the outcasts of society instead of condemning them and persecuting them; he spoke truth to power; he healed the sick, even when he wasn't supposed to; he fed the hungry and told us to do likewise. This was a guy who practiced precisely what he preached, much unlike just about every one of us.

It would seem that Jesus' mindset was more of I-showed-you-how-now-you-do-it, but it's not clear to me that this message got through. And, if you're not part of the Christian club, well, as far as they are concerned, he's not concerned with anyone who hasn't signed up, much to the contrary of how he actually acted when he was here.

For that reason alone, I think it's doubtful that he'll be rushing in with an angelic cavalry to save the day. And that, it seems, just leaves us with his "Dad" (as he called Him). Next time.

Can "the market" save us?

The answer here is more than obvious: of course, it's no. The market has never been in the business of saving. It's all about the money, and as we all know, money is the root of all evil. Those with enough cash to spare of capture and co-opted the politicians, and the players in the market, the global players, if you will, are all about growth at any price. The market as we understand it these days and the way it is portrayed by its loudest and most enthusiastic proponents is about gaining market share (always at the expense of others), growing (through destruction or assimilation of the competition), and attracting ever more investors; that is, attracting more and more money.

The purpose of business is business, opined Milton Friedman; and the purpose of business is the maximization of profits responded his acolytes. Yes, this is a quasi-religious rite that is played out each and every day in the global market place. I think it's obvious to even the most casual observer that if your primary raison d'être is accumulating money (or wealth, for you purists) than everything, and I mean everything else is secondary, is subordinate, to that purpose. Saving the world, securing the future of humanity . . . those may be noble and inspiring ideals, but they have absolutely nothing to do with “the market” and what goes on there. Friedman went so far to assert that business was wrong to even include social responsibility in its vocabulary. That was for others to worry about, not something that should be detracting business from its true and only purpose. No, business, “the market”, can't save us because it has said straight out that they have no interest in doing so. It's not even remotely part of their mind-set.

Well, science, technology, politics, and business – all players in this world can be counted out. And if nothing in or of this would can do it, it would seem that, in desperation at the least, we need to turn elsewhere to perhaps find our salvation. Where might that be?

Can politics save us?

This is not a trick question. I'm serious. Well, at least I'm serious that the question has to be asked. The role of politics in modern society is – or at least should be – to provide a safe and secure framework within which individuals and groups can live and prosper. Not only should politics ensure that science has the means and wherewithal to pursue knowledge, but also that technology can take the results of science and apply them in ways that benefit all of us. Unfortunately, that's not what they do.

Of late, they have been spending inordinate amounts of time and money on waging wars (both physical, such as in Afghanistan, and moral, such as the War on Drugs), spying on their own citizens (in the name of fighting terror), serving their own interests (the infamous “political revolving door”, their special salary, health care and pension benefits), and fighting amongst themselves (election campaigns, coalitions/oppositions). The little bit they do here and there for the safety, security and well-being of their citizenry is not worth mentioning. Things like a social safety net, livable wages, safe working conditions, and more should be of more concern to them. But it isn't.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, precisely that which science is telling us and technology is doing nothing about should be high on politics' agenda – such as, setting limits on pollutions, ensuring alternative energy sources and technologies are developed, strengthening the educational system, etc. – but it isn't.

No, it would appear that their mind-set has become one of self-satisfaction and self-serving. The concerns of “the people” take a backseat to financial and economic interests. And that, of course, will be our focus next time.

Can technology save us?

Technology is science's little brother. Big brothers are older, wiser, more imposing, but harmless. Little brothers are all about action, excitement, dynamism, and adventure. And this is precisely why technology can't save us either.

This is not to say that a lot of people don't put a lot of faith in it. Look at all the technological advances we've made, especially in the last century or so: we've gone to the moon, we are exploring outer space, we have amazing prosthetics, we can clone sheep, not to speak of the wide range of miraculous drugs we've invented. But we've also developed nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, we make environmentally unfriendly plastics, we pollute, misuse, destroy, and exploit on a global scale. When we step back and look at the big picture, when we draw up accounts, the ledger is seriously weighted on the negative side. Our standards of living are in general higher, but we suffer from more diseases, have slain untold masses, and are wrecking the environment at a record pace. How is that going to save us?

It's not. Technology is about bigger, better, faster, smarter, newer, snazzier . . . the list goes on. There are pills, machines, gadgets, replacement parts, vehicles, computers and Lord knows what-not to still be invented. The technologist will tell you that technology on the whole brings a lot of good with it, but technologists aren't the ones to point out what they're getting wrong. To them, to be fair, it's imply a matter of finding another innovation, another solution, then the problem's solved. The problem with this way of thinking, though, is that history doesn't bear it out. Ever since we learned to deal with fire, the technological path has been an exceedingly costly one in spite of all the alleged benefits.

No, it's not in the technological mind-set to save us. Granted, they might like to, but they aren't doing it, and in the end, that's all that matters. But what if they were better directed?

Can science save us?

Science can't save us. Well, that's the short answer. And if I already knew the answer, why even ask the question? The answer is that it's not just about whether, it's also about why. So why is it that science can't save us?

First, it is simply too ideologically burdened (it aims to describe, not explain, and certainly not to solve), it has a overly strong materialistic bias (except for a certain class of physicists), and it is far too concerned with itself. Second, science is mostly about knowledge, I suppose ... well, at least it used to be. We would know things, like how the world works, why the sky is blue and more recently that matter and energy are conserved, but who cares? Yes, that's the third reason. What do you do with knowledge? Most of it sits on the shelves of libraries, a lot of can be found on the Internet these days, but what do you do with it. The true scientist really doesn't care. The main thing is figuring it out. To the scientist, just about everything else is simply uninteresting.

There we are. Science is telling us that we hurtling toward The End. It can say, “Hey, you'd better stop burning fossil fuels or creating so much pollution.” but it's not their job, and they certainly don't see it as their job, to tell us how to solve the problem. They only answer questions they ask themselves. Other people's questions are for the most part, distracting.

No, science can't save us. It's not in its mind-set. So, if science itself isn't going to jump in and help, who can or will. And this brings us to technology, which we'll look at more closely next time.

Can we still hope?

To me, its quite obvious that the world's going to hell in a hand basket. This isn't just my youthful pessimism. As I pointed out just a couple of blogs ago, we may have already passed the Point of No Return environmentally. The climate-change deniers will tell you it's all a load of nonsense, the tree-huggers will tell you it's a done deal, but serious science tells us we're damn close to the precipice. You can believe what you want, but I'm going with science. At the moment, it's the most reasonable. Let's face it, primarily because of the deniers and the neo-liberal growth addicts, we're destroying the world faster than the rest of us can keep up. I think it is not unreasonable at all to start thinking about The End.

I mean, who's going to save us? (And this is assuming that we're worth saving at all.) The End means different things to different groups, of course. So-called Christians (especially the born-agains and evangelicals) have one idea about it, and materialists (especially the militant-atheist types, like Dawkins) have quite another. Personally, I think they're both in for a surprise.

There are a number of possible “saviors”: science, technology, politicians, Jesus, or God, just to name the most often mentioned and obvious ones. Maybe the right people in these various areas or the right miracles at the right moment could make the ultimate difference. Maybe ... perhaps ... I don't know for sure. It's something worth thinking about though, so I think that's precisely what I'll do.

In the next couple of posts, then, we'll take a look at the various possibilities, one by one.

Crossroads, threshold, whatever

There are enough alarmists running around: the end of the world, the end of history, the end of capitalism, the end of who-knows-what. I'm not one of them. On the other hand, we are faced with a number of serious issues which, much like the nuclear destruction of the world in the 1950s/Cold War, which could mean the end of all of us, if we don't wise up. There is no self-destructive, nefarious cabal hiding somewhere waiting to end everything as we know it. As Pogo said so long ago, "We have met the enemy, and he is us" (1953). As my mother never tired of saying, we're all our own worst enemies.

There is little doubt in my mind that if we continue (as a society and a world) along our current path, our day are numbered. We're polluting faster than we can find remedies. We're using up resources faster than we can recycle and find substitutes. We're polarizing each other faster than we can make friends. We're oppressing faster than we're freeing. In short, we are doing our damnedest to bring on the end nobody really wants.

It's not a big deal. I mean, why should I get all upset about any of this? If we destroy our basis for living, none of us will be around to be the wiser. OK, a whole lot of people will no doubt suffer and slowly die anquishing and painful deaths, but what the hell, wasn't it worth it. That second X-Box, that 17th Beamer, that €40,000 bottle of wine ... it all was worth it, right up to the end. And since there will be nobody left, there will be no one to give a rat's behind what we had or didn't have before we checked out of life. When we are gone, no one will be left to care one way or the other.

Still, I am one of those helplessly romantic people who think the earth is an overwhelmingly beautiful place. It is full of magic and wonder and beauty. It can put up with abuse than none of us can; it provides for all who are there, untill they take more than they deserve; it is, unquestionably, the greatest mystery that we can imagine. But, what the hell .. there's money to be made. Right.

Personally, I'm not all that excited or depressed about being or not being here when it all goes down the tubes. Chances are very, very good that I'll be gone before it happens. In a couple of decades, I'll barely be a memory in anyone's mind. Still, I have grandchildren, as do my siblings. By default, I have children who are going to outlive me. I may not care about what happens to me -- after all, I had my chance -- but I do care about what happens to them. That's just the kind of person I am. If I merely sit back and watch those who think they know do whatever the hell they please till there's nothing left for anybody, well, then I'm just as guilty as they are. I have no desire to die guilty ... not because I'm afraid I won't get into heaven, but because it simply isn't necessary that I do. I still have a voice (though faint), I still have the opportunity (though diminishing), and I still have the means (though restricted) to possibly instill a moment of doubt about the wisdom of the world as it is in any number of others.

No, it is not for me that I speak. It is for others who so far have no voice, no opportunity, and no means. The difference between me and many folks, but especially between me and the capitalists, is that others, "the other" (in philosophical terms) is more important to me than myself.

I'm not alone, I know. But I also know that I am an anathema to the current rational way of thinking. We are at a crossroads, or a threshold, or whatever. We all have to decide what we want to do. The upside is there are many options available. The downside is that TPTB want to think we don't have them.

You're choice. Your move.

The real problem with "arguments"

We like to think that we live in a rational world, even if there is craziness going on around us all the time. We assume that rational is normal and that craziness is not. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this is merely an assumption.

Though held in high esteem, rationality is little understood by those who advocate it most strongly. In the rational world, if this is right, then that must be wrong; if this is good, that must be bad; if it isn't one, then, by default, it must be the other. This is -- and you'll excuse my directness -- simply insane.

The rational mind, the mind that we exalt these days, is a mind of either-or: there are always only two options -- Republicans or Democrats, freedom or slavery, good or bad, right or wrong, capitalists or communists (or socialists, or whatever else they decide is "the other"). The rational world, it would seem, is reduced a mere black and white. It is this, or it is that. The trouble is, our experience tells us that it is anything but ... the world is not either-or.

Rationality, like so many other well-liked notions, is simply an unquestioned assumption. Who decided when and where that there were only ever to be two options. While I may agree that there are two sides to every question, who decided that we're asking the right question to begin with? This reduction to simplicity is a dangerous path to be following. It assumes that there are only two options. There aren't. There are as many options as we decide to allow.

I have long advocated that we start thinking about "reasonable" and abandon "rational". To be reasonable is to acknowledge that there may be a third, fourth, or who knows how many other options available. To be reasonable means we can try this because it seems like a really good idea, and when we find out it isn't working as expected, we can modify it, fine-tune it without having to throw out everything we've discovered thus far. To be reasonable means that everyone has a say, and what makes the most sense becomes clear.

Unfortunately, capitalists (to simply stay with the topic) are not reasonable people. They are absolute rationalists. The fact that their entire system is built upon questionable assumptions not only never occurs to them, they deny that such is even a possibility. If you base all you believe on one single notion -- in the capitalist's case: private property -- then a questioning of that notion, that assumption in this case, is a life-threatening act. As such, they are willing to resort to life-threatening actions to enforce their point of view (cf. the current escalation of political violence against the citizenry).

Capitalism can only work if private property is the non plus ultra of human existence. It is the most fundamental, basic and essential assumption upon which the whole idea rests. This is an assumption. And one which I question vigorously.

It has become so that property rights have now superceded, have now overwhelmed, human rights. We -- you and I -- both as members of a community and living breathing human beings, are no where near as important as whatever resources may be under our feet. We have created a system of belief that holds to be true that things are more important and more valuable that people. And this, all based on an assumption. It is supported, of course, by another assumption, that the world can be reduced to either-or, that we live in a rational world. This assumption is just as faulty.

The time has come, dear reader, that we all start questioning assumptions.

Even more problems with "arguments"

In most general terms, we can sum up our discussion thus far as "capitalism is an economic system that uses 'stuff' (money and resources) to produce other 'stuff' in an attempt to increase well-being". Like any other statement (and by now you should be getting the hint: the use of some words simply demand further clarification), this one raises a couple of questions as well, such as "Whose stuff?" and "Whose well-being?"

Today's free-market advocate will tell you that you should be able to use whatever is available anywhere it may be and in the end, all of us will benefit or be better off. I don't think that's a misstatement of the argument that is at the root of the current economic debate. And here we come to the crux of the matter.

The entire capitalist argument (more stuff is better for everyone) simply holds no water and this for the very simple reason that is based on an assumption, and this assumption is faulty. We assume that more stuff is better, even in the face of contradictory information. Yes, more stuff is better for some (limited few) but not for everyone. The assumption is that if I am doing better, you'll do better too. There's no evidence to support this, it is merely an assumption. In fact, capitalism (both as conceived and practiced) is built on a whole number of assumptions, all of which fail to hold up under scrutiny, but more on that later.

The real issue with all argumentation these days is that the arguments themselves are built upon assumptions that are never questioned, they are simply taken as givens, as if they were normal. They aren't. Capitalism, for example, has told us that more is better and the word they use to describe that is "progress". To them it is progress that we now have cars, and high-speed transportation, for example. These things make our lives "better". But what is better? That I have to spend four hours a day getting to and from work? That I see my family less because I spend so much time commuting? That the pollution that is caused by both cars and high-speed transportation which is demonstratably ruining our health and threatening the planet is a small price to pay for what? convenience? What is better about that?

We pick certain things, say they are more important than others, and everything is OK. But it isn't. Yes, we've been able to develop cures to a lot of diseases, and we've created as many more (either through stress or genetic and chemical manipulation that could eradicate our entire species); we have reduced the amount of time we need to meet our basic needs, but we've filled that free time with producing for others so that they may have even more than they already do; we have developed technologies that could connect us instantly, but we use them to oppress and control. You will have to excuse me if I don't get the whole "progress" argument.

The reason I don't is because it, like capitalism, is based on an assumption: more is better. We know that in most cases this is not true. Chocolate is good, more chocolate may have adverse effects on our health; security is good, more security quickly becomes surveillance which is not such a good thing. Assumptions are dangerous things. We should be careful when dealing with assumptions. Our biggest problem is that we assume that assumptions are true. They aren't, they are simply assumptions. We need to be able to question our assumptions in order to be clear on what we are really demanding. This is a learnable skill that, unfortunately, most of us have never learned, and which many more have never had the opportunity to learn. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn it.

The next time: a few (hopefully) helpful tips.

More problems with "arguments"

We're actually pretty safe with our assumptions about something as basic and physical as "breakfast". Nobody really cares if you want cold pizza, steak and eggs, cereal, bread and coffee or a three-course warm meal. There are other things, however, that others do care about (for whatever reasons), but they, too, function a lot like breakfast. We do them, believe them, advocate them, support them, and, sometimes even, fight for them ... because we don't realize that, in the end, they're just like breakfast.

Let's stick with "capitalism" because it's something we believe we all know something about and just about every one of us has some kind of opinion about it. When we leave the realm of the concrete (e.g. "breakfast"), we leave the world of "nomal" for the world of "right". We may think it is silly that other people eat cucumbers and tomatoes for breakfast, but as long as their amongst themselves, it really doesn't bother us, it doesn't really affect us, and so we simply don't care. When it comes to abstract ideas (and "capitalism" is an abstract idea), we start thinking in terms of right and wrong. It starts mattering to us because it affects us directly.

What most people overlook at this moment is the fact that we have placed one thing (breakfast) into an individual framework (even though other cultures may do it differently, everyone if free to have for breakfast whatever the hell they like) while the other thing (capitalism) is placed into a collective framework, and by that I mean a framework that extends beyond the individual. Capitalism affects all of us, regardless of culture. (Oh sure, there can be variations as to how it is implemented from culture to culture, but the fundamental principles remain the same.) So, what is this "-ism" that affects us all?

In its simplest form, I suppose we could say that "capitalism" is an economic way of thinking in which capital (most often money, but it could also be resources of other kinds) generates weath. That doesn't sound bad at all, does it? Sounds downright harmless, if you ask me, but we all know that there is a lot of angry discussion surrounding the term these days. My last few posts could be seen by some (not incorrectly) as a direct attack on that very simple principle. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's a good question, and one that deserves an answer.

In our simple definition, we have two concepts that, at least to me, need further clarification: "capital" and "wealth". We think we know what these are, but I would ask, do we really? Let's work backwards. What is "wealth"? In many quarters, this simply means being rich, having a lot of money, having more than enough to satisfy subsistence requirements (food, clothing, shelter) and to be able to have some joy in life. In other words, it has something to do with an abundance of material possessions that makes life "more worth living" (or something like that). If we trace the etymology (history) of the word, we find that it comes from the Middle English "weal", meaning "well-being"; the "-th" ending indicating "a state of"; that is, wealth, at root, means a state of well-being. Hey, who could argue with that?

One problem arises when we mistake the words for the reality. What actually is "well-being"? Do we agree on what the terms means? I don't think so. For some it means having a lot; for others it means have very little (minimalists). Who's right? And then, we have the matter of capital? What's that? As intimated above, sometimes it's money, sometimes it is other things, like land, natural resources, or more).

At this point the observant reader will realize that some kind of tension is building. To move on, we need to resolve that tension, which I'll attempt to do next time.

The problem with "arguments"

Having thought about the last couple of posts, I thought it might be a good idea to take a break and explain something so fundamental that we tend to overlook it. The human mind is a fascinating object of study. How we think, why we think the things we do, how we learn, what we remember ... the list truly goes on and on ... are really quite mind-boggling subjects. We know something about how the brain functions, but we know very little about how it works. And, what is even more important, we have hardly any idea what "consciousness" is and how it may (or may not) be related to the brain. All we know is that the brain is involved.

Now, I'm not going to clear these matter up by any means. I'm not even going address most of them. What I am going to address is one way that we come to believe things and why we are ready to accept some arguments while rejecting others, even though those we reject may be more compelling. I'm going to keep this simple, but I'm not going to make it simplistic. There are some things about the process than everyone can, and should, know.

We all gather sensory data through our five senses (smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, and seeing). We don't, however, gather exactly the same data. Instead, we gather this data and process it through all the filters that our parents, teachers, society, culture, and friends have helped us to create. We like certain things, dislike others, really love some things and hate others. We all experience the "same reality", but we process it in very individual ways. That's one side of the coin.

While the five senses are a great starting point for physical things, they are not so well suited for abstract ideas and notions, things that happen only in our minds. Some people prefer red to blue, others prefer liberals to conservatives, some think capitalism is good, others that it is evil incarnate. This kind of perception is what has always fascinated me the most.

The point is this: regardless of what we get through our senses, we process it through filters that we have consciously and unconsciously created. Our experiences, upbringing, society and culture have all played a very significant role in all this. I have to go back to my overworked "breakfast" example to explain: What do you eat for breakfast (usually)? Why? When you look around the world to see what other people think what constitutes a "normal" breakfast, you will most likely find yourself asking, "Why would anybody eat that for breakfast?" Yes, why? Because to them, it is normal. Whatever any of us has for breakfast is simply "normal" to us. No more, no less. There is not one normal, but all normals are equal. What we know, what we are used to, what seems to suit us is what we consider "normal". There is nothing to prove it, there are no reasons to justify it that would convince others to change their ways. It is simply a matter of assuming that whatever we (and those around us) do is "normal". In other words, normalcy is really nothing more than an assumption.

Assumptions, however, are rather tenuous things. What happens if we find that our assumptions are misplaced? What happens if it becomes clear that our assumptions are harmful? What do we do?

Good questions. More next time.

Too harsh a judgment?

Without a doubt, there are some who might think that describing American economic and political activity as a "disease" is being too harsh. I can understand their feelings, even if I don't agree with their judgment. After all, just what is a "disease"?

The Free Dictionary (online) provides us with three definitions, all of which are fairly standard:

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. Obsolete Lack of ease; trouble.

While the first is generally directed to physical organisms, there is nothing that restricts us from applying it to any organism or system of an organism, such as the "body politic", or "the economy" or "society", or whatever. This is, in essence, acknowledged in the second definition, as it can describe any condition or tendency regarded as abnormal or harmful.

I suppose we could argue all day whether our culture or our society can be considered an organism, but the analogy has been used for centuries without anyone complaining. I don't see why this has to be an issue now. Moreover, we could also spend all our time arguing about what is "normal", thereby attempting to determine what does not fit into that scheme (i.e. that which is "abnormal"). This does vary from society to society and from culture to culture, but the other word used does provide us with a sound starting point, leaving us with "a condition or tendency regarded as harmful". There is little question that the US form of capitalism is harmful, in many ways.

When we consider the amount of pollution it produces, the amount of environmental damage it inflicts, the wealth inequality and poverty that it generates, the "stress" (on individuals and whole peoples), I think we can start identifying the "group of signs or symptoms" required by the first definition above.

Don't get me wrong, the Americans aren't the only ones, but they are the cheerleaders for more, not less, capitalism; the US is home to the idea of unfettered free-market capitalism; in the US there is simply no discussion that is not ultimately, if not solely, about money/capital (most often expressed in the can-we-afford-it argument). When the Americans start propagating this outside their own borders (which is precisely what the corporate takeover of the world is about), well, that's when it starts looking infectious, dangerous, most disease-like.

The good news is, it can't go on for ever. Like any faulty system of thought, any destructive ideology, it carries within itself its own seeds of destruction. Capitalism lives from the notion of unlimited growth; the earth, however, is limited: there is only so much space and so many resources, so when either (or both) of these hit their limits, there is simply no more growth. Capitalism, if left to itself, will consume itself. The bad news is that if the environmental catastrophe that wipes out (perhaps only most of) the human race before that time, the destruction may be more than we all can handle. Of course, at that point, none of us will have to worry about anything anymore.

Capitalists like all-or-nothing arguments, but they avoid this one. No, when seen from a broader perspective, it's just a disease, and the disease peddlers aren't even thinking about a cure.

The American disease

There is no doubt that the USA has been something of a powerhouse for a good deal of its very short history. It has benefitted from accidents of time and nature, of geography and sometimes blind determination. Not everything it has ever done, of course, like any other modern (or ancient) nation-state, is worth praising. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone gets some things wrong, but it is the sign of a healthy mind that we learn from these and not do them anymore. Unfortunately, this is precisely the virus that is infecting the country right now: it refuses to learn.

America talks a good game when it comes to ideals: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; freedom, democratic processes, and equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the reality is anything but this. It is actively seeking to restrict democratic processes, through legislation and precedent; it is raping the environment in the name of economic growth, it supports corruption and lawlessness, as the recent refusal to prosecute the criminals involved in the recent economic crash has shown; it has gone after whistleblowers with a vengeance; it has suppressed its minorities (again); it refuses to admit to, or even acknowledge, its genocidal past; it knows no solution to international problems other than war and violence; it has no hesitation committing war crimes (drones, torture) in pursuit of its interests; and it is doing all it can to suppress the last remnants of opposition at home.

Now, I don't know if this is what the majority of Americans want, nor whether this is the America that the majority of Americans see. It really doesn't matter. This is their country and the simple fact that there is no visible resistance to this reign of power and terror -- political, social, and economic -- makes those of us outside believe that Americans are, well, OK with all of this. This is really a situation of silence being assent, of not-acting-against being support-for.

Unfortunately, part of America's current power is perceived to be expressed in economic terms. The American capitalist system, the great delusion of trickle-down, the rape of resources, the blatant disregard for human feelings or rights, is one of the two vehicles the country has chosen to spread to the rest of the world (the other being outright war, including drone attacks and clandestine operations). What Americans apparently don't realize and what too many non-Americans don't recognize is that we not only don't need this, we don't want it either.

The US is ill, in so many ways, and it is simply bad manners and inconsiderate to go out and deal with others when you should be at home recuperating. My suggestion, therefore, is that the US simply go home. Go back to your own four walls and sort yourself out before you insist on sorting the rest of us out.

Yes, America has traditionally liked to think that it knows what is best for all us. It doesn't. It is in such a state of delirium that it can't even see what it is doing to itself. It's time to stop spreading this American disease. "Physician, heal thyself."

Syria - Just part of the game?

Sometimes I wonder if it all isn't really some kind of game. A bizarre game, of course. A dangerous one. But is it?

I've purposely moved a bit farther east from Greece, because it is here that this craziness becomes even clearer. Just as Saddam Hussein was useful to the US for a while, our friends in Russia have their preferences as well. Neither we nor they are very picky about who is supported, as long as we think we're getting something out of it. The question often is merely "What?" Power, prestige, natural resources, money ... it might be any or all of these these, though for those who place a lot a value on obtaining them at just about any cost, I have to think it is some personally perferred combination of them, and perhaps some others I haven't thought about. It's not my thing and I simply have a lot of trouble following that kind of thinking sometimes. So, I'd like to briefly consider three "coincidences" (for lack of a better word) that have moved into the spotlight recently.

OK, granted, the first one is an oldie: petrodollars. But, when you think about straws breaking camels backs, what did Iraq do back then that ticked off the US so badly that they were willing to risk an illegal war to stop it? The world knew he didn't have chemical weapons or WMDs; we know in the meantime that Bush & Co. and Blair blatantly lied about that. One thing Saddam did do that was, to many, the ultimate slap in the face was that he decided not to deal in dollars for oil anymore and had his account denominated in euros. Here's a serious explanation; and here's a more humorous one. After all, we did see that the euro was a bit of an issue with Greece too, even if in a very different way.

Could it be that the US is suffering from a bit of currency envy? Maybe. They are treading on somewhat thin ice. Banks can be very sensitive at times, especially when they have set their minds to do something, which brings us to the now notorious end-game memo. Greg Palast broke this one. Ellen Brown has pointed out that there were four countries not playing by the rules the WTO wanted everyone playing by: Iraq (which we just dealt with), Libya (which we dealt with in 2011, not the least of which also because the Crazy Colonel was thinking of trading for oil in gold dinars), our evergreen nemesis Iran (goes without saying), and, of course, Syria. They needed to be dealt with separately. Why? Apparently because these countries favor Islamic rules for banking operation, more specifically, the prohibition of usury, which is what western banks live for and from.

And, last but not least, there is the fascinating interview with retired Gen. Wesley Clark (from 2007) in which he makes frighteningly clear that in the aftermath of 9/11, seven countries were slated for take-down (originally, within five years), and the process appears to be progressing nicely: Sudan (destroyed by civil war, split and (predominantly Christian) South Sudan set up in 2011), Somalia (destroyed by civil war, reconstituted in 2012), our old friends Iraq and Libya (just discussed, which are mere shadows of their former selves) and then, not unexpectedly, Iran, Syria (our current hot spot) and Lebanon (just now creeping into the news ... coincidentally, of course). Or maybe it is a whole way of thinking.

I don't know about you, but this all gives me pause to wonder. I wonder what the US is really up to and why. I wonder why the Manning and Snowden disclosures have so recently erupted and have been reacted to so visciously. I wonder what is really at stake in Greece and Syria. But I also wonder why we, the normal, everyday, citizens of the world, have to put up with so much crap.

Syria - What's that all about?

Those who know me know how much I love a good "conspiracy", especially those that aren't. I find most conspiracy theories amusing at best, but it is generally obvious where the perceptual flaw lies. The recent developments in Syria and what has happened did get me wondering, I'll admit.

Of course it's a huge coincidence that when I finally get around to blogging about what might be going on behind the scenes in that corner of the world, it just so happens that President Obama gets called on an ill-advised and short-sighted statement that he made months ago. One really shouldn't be drawing lines of any color in the sand, if one's not ready to back it up with action. But that whole situation came across to me as rather bizarre.

The Syrians have been killing each other for months ... profusely and brutally. Neither side is giving any quarter. That couldn't be our problem. Ill-fated and unauthorized aggression, as the Iraq War perfectly demonstrated, is too big a failure and too fresh in Americans' minds to be simply ignored by another illegal war. That could have presented a problem, and may still be a problem. Of course, it could also be that this has simply been a brilliant ploy by Obama all along.

It is not clear to me when America got queasy about brutal dictators and the use of poison gas. There is every indication that we knew exactly who was using gas against civilians back in 1988 in the Halabja massacre, and who was most likely helping them. This has been confirmed by the Huffington Post, The Week and The Economist, based on a scoop revealed by Foreign Policy magazine. This was known before and thematicized as late as 2006. Moreover, this latest crossing of the red line wasn't the first, just the largest; there were allegedly five previous incidents. But none of these caused outrage. The other loudmouth in the recent response, Britain, whose Parliament refused to support the charge forward, most likely provided the chemicals which were used to develop the sarin gas in the first place.

The unexpected shift of the Russians calling for UN control and Syria agreeing plus a less-than-radical Iran in the background speaking in moderate terms were also rather unexpected twists in the whole scenario. No, for me, this is all still much too unclear. There are too many flashing lights, too much smoke, and I expect more than one mirror involved.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy at work, but I am saying there appears to be more here than immediately meets the eye.

The Greek patient - Update

This is, of course, an ongoing story. Some of what we've seen over the past few posts is easily confirmed, other information will have to wait for further revelations. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't at least provide a few links to get you started, should you be interested in following up on developments.

The South Stream pipeline is taking shape. More information can be found

• on Wikipedia;
• on the pipeline's own webpage and
• on Gazprom's webpage.

The Nabucco pipeline is not faring so well. It appears that the project as a whole has been abandoned, but the Western portion is allegedly still an option. This is, to my mind, an interesting development. More information can be found

• on Wikipedia;
• on the World Socialist Web Site and
• at Natural Gas Europe.

Finally, there is the issue of Greece's gas reserves and its development. Offical statistics have little to say, but that would be expected in light of Müller's presentation, but there are other sources that do shed some light on the subject and provide some interesting additional perspectives:

• the Proven gas reserves page on Wikipedia;
• Wikipedia's List of natural gas fields;
• at Natural Gas Europe;
• by Reuters regarding US-Greece gas relations;
• by Reuters regarding Greek oil itself, and
• at the Online Wall Street Journal.

Of course, recent developments with Syria, to which I'll turn next time, also have an impact on this issue.

The Greek patient - So what do we do now?

When I think about all the time, money, energy, and, well, lives that have gone into this ... I'm not sure what to call it ... charade (?), this burlesque (?), this whatever-you-want-to-call-it ... I can assure you, I'm anything but happy. To be truthful, it simply turns my stomach.

Oh, I know, I know, the world isn't all that nice a place and nasty things happen all the time, but you'd think that after almost a million years of human history, we would have learned something. You'd especially think that in light of what we know about how badly all this money-grubbing and resource-grabbing turned out, we'd be a bit more cautious today. But we aren't. We're still playing stupid games that are costing real people their lives and their livelihoods. You'll forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about support for what's going on.

You should know that I think that the EU is far from perfect. I am a big fan of the idea of Europe – that much is certain – but I'm not a big fan of the EU as it's being implemented today. I believe we've been called to do better, and in order to do so, we – and by that I mean you and me and your neighbor and my neighbor ... everyday people, that is – have to become more involved and make ourselves heard. There are lots of good ideas around, and it's time we started putting some of them to work. As for the Greek patient, well, here are my suggestions for his recovery:

1. The Americans have nothing here that is theirs. It's time for them to go home or bother someone else (though I'm in favor of the former). They should get their own house in order before telling other folks how they ought to be living.
2. The IMF should be sent home. This fits in with #1. It's an American organization, and I can't begin to imagine what business it has being involved in anything internal to Europe.
3. The Greeks should be given a say in their destiny. We all agree – hell, even the Greeks that I've spoken with agree – that they need to get their fiscal house in order, but they should decide who should help and they should invite those whom they trust in to help them.
4. The Greeks should use their natural wealth to pay off those creditors who perhaps deserve to be paid off. Some of those creditors are mere exploiters and they are free to made downward adjustments as appropriate.
5. The Greeks should play a suitable role in deciding how their resources and their wealth can help Europe as a whole prosper. (In this point, there's a whole lot of rethinking to be done.) They have the means and, with some assistance, the wherewithal to ensure that Europe can actually start becoming a reality.
6. The EU must become more democratic, devolving a lot of the current power held by the EC to the European Parliament, but as a transition to a more reasonable form of governance for the 21st century.
7. The EU has the opportunity, and therefore should take it, to reorganize their money business. It's time to place our fiscal future on a new foundation. It is time to opt out of the purely fiat currency malaise that plagues the world. They could set an example for how money itself can be made more democratic so that wealth is more equitably distributed than it is now and so that everyone, not a select few, benefit when it grows.

These are merely broad-brush suggestions, of course, but in each and every one of them is an opportunity to make sensible, positive changes to business-as-usual. Will the world become perfect as a result? Absolutely not. But, in doing so, we increase the chances that there will even be a world left to leave to our children.

Think about it.

The Greek patient - What's really at stake?

It is at this point that I want to pick up a thread which was laid down in the sixth post in this series: the gas pipelines I referred to.

At the heart of the Greek problem is a rather down-to-earth fact: natural resources. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's face it: America is a resource junkie. Americans represent 5% of the world's population, but they consume 25% of its natural resources, in particular its energy resources. The Americans aren't all that hip on renewable energies (cf. the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and more) but we all know that in the interest of the environment (which also doesn't make much of an impression on Americans either) there have to be other ways of conducting our (production) business. Finally, we also know that capitalism, as it is currently practiced in the US is unsustainable. Infinite growth on a finite planet is, well, simply impossible. But the impossible never stopped America. There was a time when that might have been a good thing, but in this case, it could be the end of us all.

As it turns out, Greece is sitting on more than significant quantities of much-desired natural resources. Nobody ever bothered figuring this out, for as we saw in our review of Greek history, the occupiers were more interested in getting what they could while they could get it that the search and extraction of – granted, at the time, unknown – resources was not their highest priority. We all know, though, that America's, if not the world's, greatest addiction, is to hydrocarbons. And it is here that our Greek patient becomes downright sexy.

As fate would have it, Greece is sitting on the currently largest natural gas reserves in the world. It's not like this wasn't known before. The Germans, during WW2, obtained most of their oil from Rumania, but they were drilling in Greece as well. When you look at the whole region – from Rumania in the North, to the Caspian Sea in the Northeast, to Iran, Syria and all the way down to Libya, it stands to reason that hydrocarbons should be present in and around Greece. As it turns out, the Americans have known this for a long time.

A short digression back into history:

One of the first things the Americans did after "allowing" the military junta to take over Greece was to since contracts to explore for gas and oil. These contracts were for a period of 26 years with an option for an additional 10 years. When you add it up: 1968 + 26 + 10 = 2004, oddly enough, the year that turmoil started in Greece as we have seen. Between 1968 and 2004, oil was cheap. The Saudis had agreed back then that they could live with $40/barrel, but in 2004, oil prices began to rise drastically, as high as $140/barrel. Suddenly, Saudi oil wasn't as attractive as it once was and to a junkie, well, when you have to start paying more for the same fix, you start looking for other sources.

You can say what you want, but given the fact that it has been more than proven that Bush and Blair overtly and specifically lied to start the Iraq War, the object was oil, not freedom. Our beef with Iran isn't really over their nuclear program, for the observant reader will have noted that the Americans attempts to get in good with Turkmenistan is an attempt to outflank Iran to the North ... they are sitting on huge gas and oil reserves, too.

No, if you ask me, the jig is up. We're not dealing with anything more than a grab for resources just like we had back in the 19th century. The more things change, the more they stay the same.