It's no wonder the world's in such bad shape

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that has gone on in the last week, we've got damn little to show for it. That little fiasco did, however, make a number of things clearer than most would like to admit, but they're not necessarily the ones we like to think.

You may not want to admit it, but Emma Goldman was right: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Great Britain said they wanted out of the EU. There's not even the slightest hint that the process is even being seriously considered. The Tories apparently have to get their house in order. Why? What as it in before? It wasn't this vote that split it. The pranks and psychoses that were there before are now simply going to involve other people. None of this has anything to do with sovereignty or immigrants or lack of democracy on the Continent. The Brits have just as much democracy as anyone else: none. We're simply back to business as usual.

Believe me, I'm not picking on the Brits. They merely brought a couple of issues to the surface. As I noted recently, the US can't even pretend to have a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Though that doesn't stop them or their pundits from piping up. Both Juncker and Merkel this week have shown they have absolutely no intention of getting democratic about anything. Even people who think they did things right get to do them over again if the right people insist on it. Nothing to see here: it's just business as usual.

Hell, the only people I can see trying to make a point at all are the French, and we can't won't hear a thing about it because the European Cup (the European Soccer Cup for my American readers, and believe me, it's a big sports deal, in all senses of the word) is being played and the media isn't about to ruin such a fine sporting event. After all, there are advertisers to consider on the one hand, and ... well, you know, that is even more business as usual.

It's not really my place, but I have to tell you: democracy has nothing to do with voting or elections. Nothing. They like to tell us that the term "democracy" comes from the Greek and means "rule of the people", but you should know that ever since the term has been coined, the demos was considered a "mob" and there is no self-respecting elite in the world who is going to put up with mob rule.

Personally, and I'm as about as far away from an elite as you can get, I see their point, and I also see how well they can turn us into a mob when it suits them. Just look at the Brexit fiasco. Don't get me wrong, it's the not the end result I'm calling into question, it is the process of getting there that stunk to high heaven. We really need to think twice about getting into bed with racists and bigots (with a wink here to my American friends supporting Trump) if you don't want to be lumped in with racists and bigots. Voting, though, referendums, elections ... all those nice respectable outlets we're allowed to have ... they're just games were allowed to play to get us to think we have something to say. We don't. If we did, why are the French out in the streets? They have every reason to be: their government doesn't listen to them any more than yours listens to you. They have also experienced -- up real and personal -- just how much difference an election makes.

My question is: just when are we going to get it? just when are we going to realize that all of this "working within the system" is just a rather underhanded way of keeping all of us under their thumb?

Oh, I know what a lot of you are thinking ... especially the more paranoid and those of you who consider yourself smarter and more critical than the average mob person: he's seeing conspiracies, this one; maybe we ought to get him a tinfoil hat. That's OK. You are allowed to think whatever you want regardless of how silly it is. I'm not saying that there is some organized cabal planning the oppression of the rest of us, some nefarious and shadowy group plotting our enslavement. Here is what I do know, however:

• There is not a Western government that isn't dominated by special interests.
• There is not a Western politician who isn't influenced -- for or against -- by those interests.
• There are large corporations who are willing to spend a pittance on lobbying knowing full well their return-on-lobbying-investment will be worth every penny.
• There are very, very rich people who aren't going to share a penny with anyone else if they can help it.
• Those powerful corporations driven by profit and those rich folks have much more in common with each other than the rest of us think we have with each other, even if it is only their love of money.
• Neither of these groups is what we might call "democratically inclined".

But that's "the system", as we all know it. But, you should know that I know this as well:

• The last thing they want is for US to think we might be able to do anything about it.

And they succeed, not in some grandiose, concerted, focused effort at suppression, but because it is simply too easy to get us quibbling amongst ourselves, to get us angry at each other, and to have us at each others' throats. It's so easy because they have convinced most of us that we're nothing more than individual egos seeking our own self-interest, and that we're really nothing more than losers if we think otherwise.

I'm sorry, folks, but it is really not any more complicated than that.

If change is going to come ... that is, change that in any way, shape and form is, or may be beneficial for ourselves or our children or our grandchildren ... we've got to wake up and not smell the coffee, but smell the stench of deceit, distrust and defeat that they shower upon us.

There are times when the bravest thing you can do is to just say "no". Now is one of those times.

If you don't like the world as you find it, if you don't like the world as it's being shoved down your throat, if you don't like the world that others have made for you, then it's your move. No political candidate is going to "work for you"; they're going to work for whoever pays them enough to get re-elected. No elected official is concerned about you; they are concerned about their constituencies and getting re-elected. Am I saying that there are no elected officials or politicians who are trying to make a difference? Not at all. What I am saying is that "system" is broken, so let's stop trying to fix it, but instead try setting up something new that works. What does that "something new" look like, how does it work? I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. Since when do you need me telling you what is good for you?

If you don't like the world as you find it, stop whining (or whinging, as my British friends might say) about lost opportunities and wasted votes. Get informed, get smart, get active. Most of all, start talking: to family, friends, neighbors ... figure out what is important to you and find like-minded people to help you achieve your common goals. Think big and start small, but start. And when in doubt, ignore the system. It wasn't set up for your benefit, that's for sure.

There is no one that can make a difference in the world other than yourself. Like it or not, it all starts with you. It's time you realized that and did something about it.

You can't waste more time than this

When I see what people post on social, mainstream, and alternative media (and, yes, I don't catch it all, but I do try to get a glimpse), I wonder what most of them have ever read. More to the point, quite often I wonder if they read anything at all (including the news feeds that they are merely copying and re-feeding). I mean, who really reads anymore?

Yes, I've always been an avid reader, but I never got into reading as much as when I tried to put together an academic paper on the subject. I tried to take a look at how the process worked and what the notion of "reading" even meant. After all, there are lots of people who can decipher and decode the marks on paper or on the screen, who can read aloud to let you know their decoding is correct, but who haven't the slightest idea what those sounds are saying. Yes, a lot of folks can make all the right sounds corresponding to the letters on the page, but like a parrot, they have no idea what those words are saying.

The skill can be learned. The skill can be taught. But, I can't shake off the feeling that neither learning or teaching is taking -- or has taken -- place. Yes, I can sob and moan about not having a lot of reading friends, but the more I look around me, the more I realize that too many people have too little idea what most authors are saying. It got so bad once that I thought I should start compiling a list of the "most misquoted writers of all time". The list got too long too fast and I gave up the project. I became overwhelmed. I had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that a lot of "authority" was being thrown my way, but little of what was maintained as "authority" found reflection in the texts.

A first example: Adam Smith's "invisible hand". I not only studied business once in my life, I taught it at the graduate level for 15 years. (That's not a brag, by the way, it's just a fact ... truth be told, I don't believe to this day that "business" is an academic field of study, but I played the game long enough to at least make this statement.) Though I was teaching a graduate-level course, not one of my students had ever read Adam Smith: neither his Theory of Moral Sentiments (in my not-so-humble opinion, a pre-requisite for understanding his more famous work) nor his Wealth of Nations. Some folks are aware he wrote the latter, most have no idea he wrote the former, but in any regard, we're confronted with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at every turn in almost every economic discussion we have, be it formal, academic or in the pub. This all-so-important-and-critical phrase appears once -- yes, just once -- in the Wealth of Nations. In and of itself, that means nothing. However, when we consider that (a) it appears just once, and only once; (b) that it is not a topic of discussion or analysis itself but merely a passing example of another point he is trying to make; and (c) the text in which it appears (that is, the treatise on the Wealth of Nations) consists of five books in two volumes encompassing well over 1,000 pages, well, I have to ask myself, just how important this notion must have been to Mr. Smith himself. On the other hand, it appears to be the only clause that Milton Friedman ever understood in the whole text. If you don't believe me, try reading his Capitalism and Freedom and you can see what I mean. Self-interest plays a huge role, but whereas Smith alleged enlightened, Friedman's is wholely endarkened.

It makes you wonder ... well, it makes me wonder, at any rate. I know it takes time and effort to read, and even more to comprehend. It takes the most effort to engage and think through what you've read as well, and for that we apparently have no time left at all.

Is there such a thing as "Western culture"?

If I take my own "definition" from last time seriously, the answer would be "no", but that would be a bit short-sighted.

The factor that stops us is the first one -- Language -- for we in the West certainly don't speak a single tongue. In the narrower sense of the term "language", this is true, but we need to step back a bit and look at the bigger picture. Linguistically, most Western languages (Hungarian, Finnish, and Basque excepted) are at least loosely related. The number of Greek and Latin-based words that have found their way into all Western languages, often in their own language-specific forms yet they are still often recognizable (e.g., the differences between philosophia-philosophie-philosophy-filosofia, etc. are not all that extravagant). Very often, key concepts are shared, even if the words themselves are different (e.g., notions like "holiday", "illness", names of body parts, etc.); that is, there is often almost a 1-to-1, word-level translation possible. Keeping in mind my admonition to look for what connects rather than what separates, we need not dismiss language outright.

Similar, but perhaps not as obvious, comparisons could be made in regard to the other factors I identified, but what interests me most is what is not obvious at all, what is so taken-for-granted, that we don't think about such things at all. This is particularly evident in the Beliefs and Customs areas: for example, that marriage is between only two people and is generally done in a ritualized manner in front of witnesses; that the roles played by men and women are asymmetric; that the individual is special; that the notion of "property" held in very high esteem; that a scientific, objective approach to problem resolution is worthwhile; that reason is a good thing; that we have at least one holiday honoring our home country and that most of the other holidays have Christian roots. When I was young, however, much of this was much more apparent and, consequently, taken even more for granted. But there are indications that the underlying cement of Western culture is starting to crumble.

Our beliefs and customs most often found their expression through the medium of religion, and that's what's changing most quickly and most deeply. Even though Christianity is anything but monolithic (i.e., three primary divisions: Catholic Protestant, and Coptic; two flavors of Catholicism (Roman and Orthodox, the latter breaking down into a growing number of subgroups); Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Pentecostal Protestants, the latter three having split into innumerable specific denominations, as well as special-cases like Mormonism. What binds them together is much, much less than what makes them different. In times past, most people were either unaware or unconcerned about the differences, but these days, they are playing an increasingly important, decisive, and divisive role. Couple this with a dramatic rise in the number of individuals declaring themselves atheist (whereby, the vast majority of these are, I believe, merely agnostics), and a growing number of people who more or less reject religion altogether in favor of a much less clearly defined "spirituality", and it soon becomes rather obvious that what made us in the West a WE is rapidly losing its cohesive strength.

As is so often the case, these factors, trends, and developments are neither good nor bad, but that our thinking make it so. The current attempts to unify the West religiously to combat what is perceived as a more monolithic religious threat (e.g., Islam) clearly show just how disconnected we've all become. Maybe it is time to finally drop the notion of a "Western culture" all together. The world is getting smaller by the day, so perhaps it is really time to starting thinking more about what we can and do share and stop worrying at all about what makes us different. Deep down, we're hardly different at all.

What, then, is "culture"?

Nations are new. Cultures are as old as humanity's presence on the planet. There are, indeed, various kinds of cultures: tribal, local, regional, corporate, national, or transnational even. When we think and speak of "culture" these days, we almost automatically think of a "national culture", but only because we are often ignorant of all that history, anthropology, ethnology, and sociology may have to offer us. I'm not going to try to fill that gap, I'm merely going to point out a few salient features of "culture", because our ignorance is causing a lot of misery in a lot of lives.

In simplest terms, a culture is the language, customs, beliefs, and actions of a given group of people who feel bound together because of those four things.

1. Language is a strong component, to be sure. This is why one often speaks of the Anglo-American culture (which also includes, oddly enough, the Australians, and for some, the South Africans, but not necessarily (or at least not consciously, the Belize), or the German culture, whereby the language is spoken as well in Austria and parts of Switzerland, and these are included in the concept.
2. Customs describes "the way we do things around here". It includes holidays, like a big, family meal at Thanksgiving, or Santa Claus (or whoever brings Christmas gifts); and sports (baseball, football, soccer, lacrosse); and little things like whether people shake hands when they meet, and more.
3. Beliefs include the stories and myths that a particular group holds dear, be it the Pilgrim Fathers, Charlemagne, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. These may be religious in nature, but they can also be secular and profane, like owning guns is a fundamental right, or all persons are created equal, or property rights trump personal rights.
4. Actions are what really defines a culture, though. These are the things a group does, not only because that's the way they do things, but because they believe they have a right to do them. It's not only the way a group acts towards others, but because they have always been able to act that way. In other words, the customs and beliefs often drive what a culture thinks it's OK, good, right and proper to do.

I would be the last person to say what a given culture says, believes, or does is good or bad or right or wrong. All I know is that there are a lot of different ways to slice the reality pie. What I also know, however, that there are way too many cultures on this small planet which think that however it is that they have decided to slice that pie is the "right" way, the "proper" way, the only "reasonable way" to slice it. My only response to that is, well, "bullshit".

Beneath, behind, and beyond whatever we think our culture "entitles" us to, we need to recognize the simple, unalterable fact that everything any of us, individually or collectively, say, believe, and in particular, do has effects on others; that is, anyone other than ourselves or our (cultural) group. We forget that all too often.

Whatever we think is good, right and proper is only what we think is good, right and proper. Some values are universal (not harming others, for example), but even these can be relativized once we start thinking that "our" culture is "better" than "their" culture. Unfortunately, that's where we are today.

We believe we are the good ones, and those "others", well, they're the bad ones. It turns out, however, that they are merely the others whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not. Knowing what that otherness is and understanding what we have in common rather than what separates us are the true marks of the cultivated, civilized person. No more, no less.

Is there culture beyond yoghurt?

Our English word "culture" derives from the Latin cultus which means more or less "tilling, cultivating, tending". The very roots of civilization can be recognized as it was when humans first learned to systematically till and cultivate the soil, to farm, that they initiated what we today refer to as "history": the story, the narrative of where we as a species have been. That, of course, is the most general, all-encompassing view of the situation.

There are individual, isolated and particular histories as well. At the other extreme we have individual histories, which we no longer call such, but rather call biographies. Just about any geographical region that you can name, has its own, often oral history. And, since the late 17th century, we find the development of national histories as well, many of which are intertwined. The history of the United States in unthinkable without the history of Great Britain, and its history is tightly interwoven with that of the Portuguese, Spanish and French, all of which were greatly influenced by the history of Rome and Greece, and voila we've got the makings of Western Civilization.

These histories don't only describe what this or that person or this or that group have done, they also describe means of expression (statuary in Greece and Rome, painting in the Renaissance, music in the 18th and 19th century, just to intimate some readily recognizable motifs), rules of interaction (e.g., Roman law), and institutions (in the West, primarily the Church) which have left an indelible impression on how we do things, how we express and how we organize ourselves, and, not the least, what we believe.

When we stop to reflect upon such things, they come into much sharper relief than usual. Our everyday mode of interaction with them is on the contrary subliminal, unconscious, assumed, or simply taken-for-granted. Whatever it is that makes a culture, however, takes time, long periods of time. There is never just one thing that distinguishes one culture from another, that's for sure. They consist of an amalgamation of traditions, legacies, stories, works of art and language, and more that operates so far beneath the threshold of consciousness that we have difficulty saying what they are. And many of them sit so deep, so firm that we have trouble recognizing them even when they are specifically pointed out to us.

What appears to happen, though, when someone, like Mdme Thatcher, rips the heart of the economic-political-social-religious-cultural matrix is that the entire edifice collapses and we end up with an every-person-for-themselves situation: John grasping firm to the political, Joan to the cultural, Jane to the religious, and Jim to economic. We become like the blind men describing the elephant, as a tree (if all you can feel is a leg) or a snake (if you happen to be holding the trunk) or a rope (if you've got the tail). We've got all of the pieces but no keystone to hold it all together.

How does a "we" become a mere "me"?

Although it has been a while, I've dealt with the notion of "Advent", what it's about, how it not only marks a change of seasons, but also what it means in a yearly sense.

There's no real need to rehash old themes. This year is not all that different from previous ones: there's too much trouble, pain, strife, war, death, and suffering going on out there; the greedy still can't get enough; the poor are still looked down upon, if they're not outright despised; the first salvos in the so-called "war" on Christmas have already been fired; and my own desire to hear a collective voice of reason in the hectic remains unfulfilled. Too few people care ... about any of what this "season" should bring; and even fewer are willing to budge even an inch out of their own self-righteous comfort zones to fill the season with any kind of reason.

Margaret Thatcher, the Female Godhead of Neoliberalism, maintained -- and her acolytes and adherents proclaim -- that there is no such thing as society; it is merely a collection of individuals. That is unchallenged dogma in the meantime, and even the briefest glimpse at anything calling itself news confirms its "truth". But, religions -- and neoliberalism has taken on this mantle -- cannot exist apart from cultures, so that is the next falsehood that must be destroyed, and all of us worldwide, though more markedly we in the West, are rallying to the Call for Destruction. Just like the often illiterate and ignorant destroyers of culture known as ISIS, even we non-military, supposedly peace-loving, non-violent types are just as effective as they are at destroying common history as well.

Without a society; that is, without some kind of social grouping that views itself as "us", it is difficult to imagine a culture forming. A culture, in this sense, the linguistic, artistic, musical, literary, and value-oriented backdrop that provides the context in which a given group can function. In certain regards it is all those unspoken rules, guidelines, customs and mores that let everyone knew "how things are done around here". That group will then organize itself in relation to other groups in civil (political) and economic (commercial) ways. Politics and commerce are, by their very nature, unable to support culture. Given the influence she enjoyed throughout the West, when Mdme Thatcher conceptually eliminated "society", she did as much to destroy our culture as Muslim radicals do when they go around blowing up cultural heritage sites or chiseling facades off of walls. We readily recognize the one, and deal very ineptly with the other.

Though only one example, it is indicative of why we find ourselves in crisis these days ... and everything has become a crisis. Whatever it was that made us "us" has been so weakened, so debilitated that we're left primarily with ourselves. And individuals are never a sound basis upon which to build.

False dichotomies

We all like to think we're free ... we're not. We like to think we're secure ... we're not. We like to think we know something ... we don't. We like to think we can handle things ... we can't. We like to think we're on top of things ... we aren't. We like to think we have a say in what's going on ... we don't. We like to think we ... well, we like to think whatever we think.

Elections were just held in America. Did anything change? Nope. The Europeans are getting restless about TTIP. Has anything changed? Nope. The crisis in the Ukraine has been mollified by recent elections. Is the situation less tenuous? Nope. ISIS is still on the march. Are we any safer? Nope. The climate is changing. Are we any closer to a solution? Nope. The banking industry is acting as crazy as they were before the last crash. Are we going to see the next one coming? Nope.

We like to think we live in democratic societies. Do we? Nope. We like to believe that we're the good guys (politically, religiously, economically ... and I'm talking about the West here). Are we? Nope. We want to believe that everyone's out to get us (because we're the "good guys"). Are they? Nope. We like to think that we have a say in what's going on (wherever it is we happen to be living). Do we? Nope. We want to believe that things are going to get better. Are they? Nope. We want to believe that our children will have it at least close to as good as we had it. Will they? Nope.

Taken in isolation, none of these things is all that bad. It's the fact that we have to deal with all of them all at once that makes us uneasy. As good, everyday moderns, we think that things should either be one way or the other. Truth be told, it's hardly ever that way. That whole "50 shades of gray" thing was off the mark and beside the point. There's a lot more shades of gray and we have to deal with them every single minute of every single day of our lives.

The result? We end up creating false dichotomies that we have have to deal with and that we don't really understand: liberal/conservative, democracy/totalitarianism, capitalism/socialism, givers/takers, friend/enemy, saved/damned, freedom/slavery ... and the list goes on and on. Who really knows the difference? Where do we accurately draw the line? How do you really tell one from the other? To me, these are all legitimate questions that demand legitimate answers, or how am I to understand the drone-killing, war-waging, president who got more money from Wall Street than any of his predecessors being called a Marxist-socialist-imperial-dictator? It just doesn't make sense, but a lot of things don't make sense to me anymore. I used to think it was because I didn't understand, but I'm coming to realize that a whole lot of people who are claiming to know something, in fact don't know very much at all.

No, dear reader, the weirdness index is simply rising.

I would like to think

... that things aren't as bad as I think they are, that things are getting better, that we're somehow "getting it", that we're moving "forward" (whatever that means) or "making progress", that we're somehow more secure, smarter, or wiser than we used to be. But, alas, we're not.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that things used to be better and that we need to turn back the clock or calendar, or whatever. They weren't. We shouldn't. What I am saying is that you would think that we might have solved a couple of problems by now, but in truth we haven't. Think about it. Oh sure, we have a supposed cure for this or that illness, but it's only available to those who can afford it, and most can't; there are more people worldwide suffering from hunger than ever before; the extremes of poverty and wealth are getting more extreme; there hasn't been a year of my life (and I'm not youngster anymore) in which there hasn't been a war somewhere (and most likely in which my country of birth has been seriously involved); prices have never really ever gone down; and more than one economy in which I have been participating has tanked more than once.

It makes you think. Well, it makes me think, at any rate. But it's not getting any easier to make sense of it all.

Far be it from me to think that I'm some kind of isolated case. I'm not. Most of the people with whom I have to do, day in and day out, have historical biographies much like my own. For those of us who were once "in the middle", things aren't all that rosy. For those of us who got an above-average education without having to leverage the rest of lives, we realize that no matter who's in power, their power seems to somehow increase, while ours seeps away before our very eyes. For those of us who still like to think that we can think, well, I would like to think that we're not as dumb as so many would like us to be. But I'm starting to have my doubts. Serious doubts.

For almost a decade-and-a-half, I lived and worked in Silicon Valley in California. There were lots of bright people running around, to be sure. Some of them are rich beyond our wildest dreams today. Some are poorer than church mice. Some had the most clever ideas for products and services. Some believed the weirdest stuff that you can imagine. You would think that I most like had seen and heard it all. But I haven't. Today's world is weirder, crazier, more unpredictable, more elusive than anything I saw, heard, or experienced there. Why is that?

To be perfectly honest, I'd really like to know. From time to time in these posts, I try to explore the reasons. I've not decided on anything yet, except that we're not going anywhere fast. In fact, we're not getting a grip on anything at all. So, if you'll bear with me for the next couple of posts, I would like to air some of that thinking. Maybe you'll recognize where I've missed something, overseen something, misinterpreted something.

Who knows? I would like to think ...

Happy Easter!

Just in case you were wondering, I have to admit that I'm enjoying this Easter a little more than some in the past. Oh, sure, the weather is more or less cooperating (I remember snowstorms, frost, sleet and rain on some); but I am also sort of enjoying the squirming some of the non-Orthodox Christians are going through this year. This isn't schadenfreude, it's merely an observation.

You will recall that the Roman Church and most Protestants would rather celebrate Christmas than Easter. For many of them, as is the case for many moderns regardless of persuasion, spirituality is a bit difficult to deal with. By focusing on the physical we can avoid all that messy metaphysical stuff. Up until now, the Paulites had the say: Jesus was killed for your sins; own up to it, accept it, proclaim it (preferably loudly) and you're home free (as far as the Protestants were concerned; you had to register this, so to speak, with the authorities and the Catholics considered you part of the club).

Unfortunately, this is just one view: Paul's. There are still some "weirdos" out and about, however, who think that Christianity has something to do with what Jesus said and did while he was alive, that what was important was not so much what you say, but what you actually do. The way I see it, this is precisely the approach that Papa Frank is pushing. I can't begin to imagine that he's making a lot of friends with it either. And that's why I'm feeling a little more upbeat today than usual.

So, whether you're getting ready for spring, looking for hidden eggs with the kids, having a special dinner, or simply wondering what others might be celebrating, I hope you have fun doing it, and I hope you have fun doing it with others. Easter should be, in my view, a family holiday. It's as good a reason as any to simply get everyone together and to spend some special time, eating, drinking, and being merry.

Yes, live it up. After all, that's what this particular holiday is supposed to be about.

Maundy Thursday

It is clear to me that many who read these posts regularly are bothered, if not downright offended, when I compare our current plutocratic capitalism to a religion. What is interesting, to me at least, that some of the upholders of that view are bothered as well as others of faith are bothered. That's a good thing. We should be bothered by ideas from time to time.

The advocates of "the system" like to think they are not religious, but I think it's pretty clear they are. They simply have a different set of beliefs that those who believe they are religious. The patterns are the same, the mechanisms are the same, there are rituals and professions of "true belief" involved, and -- most unfortunately -- the outcomes are pretty much the same (more death and destruction than life and growth). The religionists don't like it because they think being compared to a secular club somehow denigrates their religion. It only does if you allow it to, or if you practice what you call religion in such a way that it is hard to distinguish from its secular counterpart. That's where we are by all who believe that their religion is the true religion. This applies to fundamentalists of all stripes, but considering the real-life timing of this post, we're going to concentrate on our Christian friends.

Today marks the real beginning of the Passion of Easter. It should be, by all rights, the highest four days of devotion for all those who call themselves Christian. We need to remember: no Easter (that is, no death and resurrection) there's no Christianity. It's very existence depends on the events of these days 2,000 years ago. As it is, it is the Eastern Church, the so-called Orthodox varieties, who make this holiday the high point of the year. For the Roman Catholics and Protestants, it's Christmas; that is the celebration of the physical birth. If we look at the contention that Jesus was crucified, put to death, buried and arose again on the 3rd day, well, then what we are dealing with here is a spiritual birth. Religions, being by nature spiritual, you'd think that today would be the kick-off of the time of greatest celebration, but it isn't. We're going to spend a lot more time looking for hidden eggs and eating chocolate.

It's not exactly clear to me why, but I do have my suspicions.

The new religion

Don't get me wrong. I am more than aware of the power of beliefs. I may say that these are "simply" things that some folks believe, but "mere" beliefs have been the root of some of the most heinous atrocities in the history of humankind.

The problem is that it is an extremely small step from "belief" to "true belief", from "believers" to "true believers". True believers are not be questioners. By that I mean that they are not renowned for questioning those beliefs. Not only are they believed, they are accepted as true, they are taken as fact, and, in the end, it becomes heresy (or some kind of crime) to call them into question at all, to even hint that they may, well, questionable. And that's where we are with neoliberalism these days.

It would seem that we are confronted with a new religion. Neoliberalism, as currently advocated and practiced, has all the trappings of religion and its power is comparable, if not in excess, of its religious predecessors, be it the Islamic Expansion after the death of the Prophet Mohammed or the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. More specifically, it exercises its power through violence.

How many infidels were converted by the sword? How many non-believers were brutalized, tortured and executed for challenging the authority of the Church? And today, be it through the outright dictatorial oppression that the peoples of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, Southeast Asia, and post-Colonial Africa were (and in many cases still are) forced to endure, or the ravaging of whole economies by the World Bank and IMF, as is happening to Greece, or the militaristic corporate state that has taken root in the United States, how many of been beaten, arrested, imprisoned and persecuted for resisting the Power of the Market?

No, the pattern, the motivations, the modus operandi, the justifications, the argumentation ... it is all the same. Whereas the victims of religious zeal were at least promised a life of peace and happiness in the hereafter, in the New Dispensation you are condemned to Hell on Earth: insecurity, fear, pain, poverty, illness and arbitrary violence as the preferred means of control.

Or, as the new High Priests like to proclaim: or so have you chosen. Only you are to blame for your plight.

Oh, how far we have come.

When the inmates run the asylum

Now, for those of you who have "drunk the (neoliberal) Kool-Aid", so to speak. I'm sure you've got your undies in a knot over how I can just slough off things you so dearly believe in. My point is simple: each of the 10 items I listed as central to a neoliberal world view are, at bottom, nothing but beliefs, articles of faith, if you will, because they have no justifiable basis in reality. None of them are true. None of them are facts. They are, simply stated, just things you believe.

So, for the anal-retentive types among you, my point-by-point refutation:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
   Please explain altruism to me. Provide any evidence that, say, evolutionarily speaking cooperation is not advantageous.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
   What does "enlightened" mean in this context? How does everyone looking out for him/herself automatically become "for the good of all"?
3. Markets should be free.
   What does "free" mean? If left to their own devices, where is the historical evidence that markets work to the benefit of the majority, not the minority?
4. Deregulation is desirable.
   See previous point.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
   What does "efficiency" mean? Name one privatized sector in which public services are being provided at costs lower and more people are served with fewer resources than if the government were doing it.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
   Since social spending is, by definition, for the good of all, define "wasteful" in this context. Explain how spending $3bn on food stamps, for example, is "worse" than providing companies with $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
   Any evidence whatsoever would be appreciated.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
   If neoliberalism works, why do we have wealth/income inequality in the first place?
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
   Based upon which criteria?
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.
    Why? Why is property so important to begin with?

In other words, where are the facts to back up the assertions? Where is the evidence to support the principles? If you can't show it, I am perfectly justified in thinking that these are not things that "are", rather they are simply things that you believe.

The fruits of delusion

The most extensive and exacting look at Friedman's and The Chicago School of Economics' approach has been presented by Naomi Klein in her eminently readable book The Shock Doctrine. She traces the path of influence and implementation of Friedman's and neoliberalism's activities over the past 40+ years, starting withe Chile, moving on to Argentina, Bolivia, Poland (post Solidarity Movement), Russia (and Yeltsin), South Africa, the Asian "tiger economies", through Thatcherism, Reaganism, up to the financial crash of 2008. I'm not saying that this isn't a controversial book. It is. But, it's well documented, well argued, and, in the end, pretty much on target.

Practically every principle or precept that neoliberalism holds to be true fails to hold up in reality. Free markets don't exist, but it's not that they haven't been free enough. Instead, we see that without massive government intervention (for example, as in Iraq), markets are not capable of organizing themselves. Without regulation, businesses, left to their own devices, will seek protected markets, government subsidies, and monopoly status to protect their interests, not the greater good. It turns out, in practice, that self-interest is anything but enlightened, rather Gecko's maxim, "Greed is good", prevails. Yes, a few benefit -- greatly, even outrageously -- but most of us are left by the wayside.

Yes, the neoliberal program has been forced through again and again, and the result is always the same: unfree markets, dictatorial governments, the widespread abuse of human and other rights, oppression, destruction, and, if necessary (or not), war to provide the shock that is needed to ... well, it is not clear what the real goal is. The non-violent, non-military, non-CIA-induced regime-change applications of the theory, say, in the UK or USA, has produced nothing more than rising unemployment, demonization of the poor, and a wealth inequality unparalleled in the history of the world. If there has ever been a failed mode of thought, this is it, yet it lives, thrives and is perpetuated, in particular in organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The (now discredited) policy of austerity is their non-military application of their principles. The Greeks are the latest victims, but, I can assure you, they will not be the last.

If so many lives were not at stake, we could afford ourselves the luxury of intellectual refutation, as Sheldrake's case against science demonstrates. These principles of neoliberalism, however, are not mere intellectual postulates. It is possible, rather easily, I might add, to demonstrate clearly how incredibly inapplicable any one of these "dogmas" are. Not a single one holds true. Not a single one is supported by any real-life evidence. Not a single one is defensible on realistic or real-life ethical grounds, but they are the New Gospel of Salvation.

Those who believe, however, are those who benefit from such ideas. Those who believe have access to the power brokers and law makers worldwide. Those who believe are responsible for the pain, suffering and even death of so many innocent human beings. If there has ever been a system of faith, a system of belief, a "religion" that broaches no other, neoliberalism is it.

References
Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Picador, New York.

More on economics' delusion

It should be becoming clearer that this science of economics is a bit difficult to pin down. A lot of what happens in the world and what happens to all of us depends on what economics says should be. It would be worthwhile then, in parallel to Sheldrake, to identify those precepts of economics that are driving policy and law makers these days. Here is my suggested list ... those things that "economics" asserts to be true:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
3. Markets should be free.
4. Deregulation is desirable.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.

If in fact economics (and granted, this is the currently dominant, neoliberal version of the subject that we are considering) is a science, even only a descriptive one, then we should be able to find evidence in our experienced reality that bears out these principles. So the question is: can we? I think even a cursory review of the list reveals they're not even close.

What I've described in those 10 points above is more or less the position that Milton Friedman advances in his seminal text, Capitalism and Freedom, the "Bible" of Neoliberal Economic Theory. This is the text that drives most of what has been happening from the policy side since the early 1970s. There should be a good body of evidence in support of these principles. Is there?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Not a shred.

But wait, you say, where and when has any of this been "tested", in any sense of the word? And to that I can only respond: in too many places and in too many ways, but that's a subject for next time.

References
Friedman, Milton (2002/1962) Capitalism and Freedom, 40th anniversary edition, with the assitance of Rose Friedman, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

The economics delusion

The unexpected question (and the implied answer) were a bit surprising, I know. Every once in a while, a writer needs to wake up his or her reader. Good morning (or afternoon or evening or whatever, depending on when you are). We need to dig a little deeper.

The English philosopher R.G. Collingwood once defined "science" in a rather simple and straightforward way. He said that science is "a body of systematic or orderly thinking about a determinate subject-matter" (p4). Thinking systematically, in turn, is "answering questions intelligently disposed in order. The answer to any question presupposes whatever the question presupposes. And because all science begins with a question (for a question is logically prior to its own answer) all science begins with a presupposition" (p63).

I like this definition for two reasons. First, it certainly allows us to look at economics as a science (and the definition is equally applicable to the natural sciences as well). Second, it emphasizes (and reinforces) the point I have been making and that Sheldrake presented so forcefully, namely that all sound thinking starts with assumptions (and it would do us well to be aware of what these are).

When seen as systematic thinking, we can see what economics is up to. They should be able to develop theories, even if they can experiment with them, that can be used to explain what's going on around us. Those of us who were forced into economics classes in the course of our schooling and those who take an interest in more than sports have come to know some of the general principles that economics proposes: supply-and-demand (high demand, high prices, for example); too much money in circulation equals inflation; and more, but our experience also shows us that these principles (which economists like to pass off as "laws", which they aren't) don't always work. Anyone who thinks that gasoline prices, for example, are driven by supply-and-demand, is out of touch with reality. I've seen prices vary by as much as 10 euro cents per liter between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. What we all drive to work but don't have to go home? No, it's the little things that give it away.

It turns out that economics, then, spends most of its time developing (mathematical) models that describe what is going on around us. My question is, just how helpful is that? I'm not convinced they are very helpful at all. All that economic commonsense that most of us were exposed to just doesn't seem to reflect what is really going on. Oh sure, the economists would like us to believe that the world has become so much more complicated that it's hard keeping up with reality. Truth be told, though, their models are just that models. Reality ... well, that's whole other story ... as any of us living there can tell you.

It's here that we see the weakness of Collingwood's definition, that is true, but it's the best one we have right now. There is systematic thinking about a subject matter going on. The problem is, however, that the thinking about the subject matter has little, if anything, to really do with the experience of the subject matter. In other words, it would seem that economics may have simply said adieu to reality. If that's the case, who cares if it is a science or not?

So it is to that, and its consequences, that we will turn to next time.

References
Collingwood, R.G. (1998/1940) An Essay in Metaphysics, Revised edition, with an Introduction and additional material edited by Rex Martin, Clarendon Press, London.

Is economics even a science?

There will be some of you who will be somewhat shocked by today's title. I think it's a legitimate question. When we reflect upon what Sheldrake presented and argued, we recognize that it is focused very much on what we call the "natural (or hard) sciences". The Queen of these is, of course, Physics, but chemistry and biology are well represented at court. Nevertheless, it is worth asking ourselves what constitutes a "science".

First and foremost, we should recall that the word "science" comes from the Latin verb scire which means "to know". Science is, then, at heart, a way of knowing. As such, it is more of a method than object. As most of us were taught in school, this method was considered the only really legitimate pathway to knowledge (and by extension, truth). The scientist came up with an hypothesis, performed experiments to confirm or refute that hypothesis, and based on the data and evidence collected through experimentation, s/he would revise the hypothesis and continue their research. Other scientists were invited to join in and contribute. In this cooperative and disciplined way, our knowledge base grew and progress was achieved. One of the strongest advantages of this approach was that if we knew what causes brought about which effects, we could make reasonable and accurate predictions. If this and this are the case, and that happens, then we would know the outcome.

A first look at economics in this light, however, makes it pale by comparison. Oh sure, you can form an economic hypothesis, but how do you perform an economic experiment without potentially endangering the well-being of a huge number of people? Breaking economic relationships down into manageable pieces in order to perform experiments, however, so changes the nature of those relationships that they no longer are valid for making predictions based on the outcomes. So, economics is certainly not a science in the same sense that physics, biology or chemistry are sciences.

Economics, then, was forced down a very different path. At best, it could attempt to objectively observe economic phenomena and then based on those observations, derive and formulate theories that would explain them. If this and that condition arose in a market, then one could predict what the consequences would be. Unfortunately, economics' hit rate was far lower than that of the natural sciences. It is not just that economic phenomena are perhaps more complex than physical, biological or chemical ones ... and we can well imagine how complex many of these are ... rather, there were too many factors that could affect the outcomes, not the least of which was the highly unpredictable role that people play in these situations. Humans are particularly good at surprising even themselves and doing something totally unexpected. That makes life for the economist particularly difficult.

This doesn't mean that there's nothing to salvage here and that we should just toss economics out the window. Given the role it plays in our lives, there must be a way of dealing with it, and I believe we can find some sound common ground upon which to stand. What this is and what it means for economics in particular, however, we'll look at next time.

More on science's delusion

There are many phenomena in the world, many experiences that we all have had (and will continue to have) that the scientific, materialistic worldview cannot and will not be able to explain. Any probability specialist worth his or her salt will tell you that the Universe isn't old enough in seconds to account for the random combination of anything into anything looking the least bit like life, let alone what we know as human life. The mere fact that the known visible universe only accounts for 4% of the matter and energy that there should be (according to physicists' calculations) leaves the experts stumped. Today's science can't tell you how we can see, how any of our senses really work, how thoughts and memories are generated or stored, or, most importantly, why we're even conscious at all. To some current philosophers of mind, consciousness is simply an illusion: it shouldn't be there, we don't know how it got here, so in essence, we should just ignore it. It doesn't matter because it isn't matter. I don't know about you, but I can't help but feel that the flat earth is not far behind. Two-thousand years of "scientific" and philosophic inquiry and that's all we have. Not an outstanding show.

The problem with basing "science" on these dogmas, as Sheldrake calls them, is that what most of us naively understand science to be isn't really practiced anymore. When I was going to school, we were told that science was a rigorous, structured way of exploring, testing, and validating the world. It conducted experiments, collected data and facts and combined them into theories that could further be tested, validated or falsified. When enough data was collected that no longer fit with the existing explanation, the theory was revised, new hypotheses were formulated and everyone moved forward again. Unfortunately, that is not always the case any longer. Not all questions worth asking are even permitted to be asked. It's sad really, because we are limiting ourselves before we even start. When certain questions are simply out-of-bounds, you have to start asking yourself "why"? At least I know that I do.

The parallels to the Church of the Middle Ages are overwhelming: the sun revolves around the earth/everything consists of matter; the earth is flat/there is no goal or purpose to existence; the cosmos is eternal/mass and energy are conserved. No questions necessary. The answers have been conveniently predetermined. And, the powers that control these answers see to it that even nascent challenges are simply nipped in the bud.

Sheldrake's point is that we must now rise up and resist the dogma. If we want to know what is what, we need to challenge the established orthodoxy. We need to demand that science live up to its true nature, that it, once again, become a way of knowing and understanding the world and everything in it. There can't be unaskable questions. Any question that can be asked deserves an answer ... or at least the reasonable, sensible search for one.

And so, the next time, we'll take a similar look at "the dismal science", economics, to see how it measures up.

Science's delusion

Let's start by taking a look at Sheldrake's case.

It may seem odd casting the august notion of science into the guise of religion, but it appears that this is precisely what has happened. As Sheldrake points out, challenging these articles will ensure that you receive no funding for your research. You will be excluded from conferences, you won't get your papers published, and if you insist on pursuing this heretical path, you will eventually be excluded from the community ... what the Church called Excommunication.

The institution that perpetuates this belief, that is the Keeper of Its Keys, of course, is the modern university. Godwin (1986) has drawn a poignant parallel between the role played by the Church in the Middle Ages and the role played by The Academy today, complete with rites, rituals and regalia that reflect the pomp and power of those deemed worthy to go forth into the world to be "experts"; that is, purveyors of the True Faith.

Some of you will take this for an exaggeration, but try obtaining grants for your research without the right papers and credentials, try gaining acceptability and respectability without the proper sigils and seals. You might have the cure for cancer in your head, but without the proper documents, authorizations and blessings of the Key Keepers, you will remain a non-descript, unknown novice, who will long have been forgotten before you were ever really known. Yes, there are vested interests involved, and they broach no rebellion.

It would be worthwhile, I believe, to at least list these ten Articles, for while I will not have time to deal with them individually in detail, they do establish a reasonable and comprehensible starting point for uncovering their true nature. On pages 7 and 8 of Sheldrake's book, he lists them (and discusses them in detail throughout the rest of the text), and I'll state them only briefly here:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.
4. The laws of nature are fixed.
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Two things are immediately apparent. First, Sheldrake, being a biologist and chemist by trade, has focused on what we would call the "natural sciences", not necessarily science in general. Second, the philosophy of science that he is challenging is called "materialism". The idea is that everything ... absolutely everything ... can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry, for the most part. If it isn't anchored in matter, it can be ignored. Genes are responsible for heredity, mutated genes are responsible for differences over generations, everything happens by random chance, and that's it. Unfortunately, that's not it at all.

And that's where we'll pick up next time.

References
Godwin, Joscelyn (1986) "Priests, Professors, & Gurus: When the Academy is a Church the Hermetic Professor becomes a Heretic", Gnosis Magazine, No. 2, Spring/Summer, pp. 35-38.

Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

Seeds of delusion

The observant reader will have noticed that over the last few posts, a certain theme continually recurs, namely that too often we only think we know things when in fact we merely believe that things are a certain way. This error is much more widespread than we generally assume. The reason for it, however, is rather simple and straightforward, and I have been stating it in various ways throughout these posts as well. To put it another way, we fall into the belief trap when we fail to question our own "givens", when we do not question the assumptions we make. Whatever we take for granted, we think is, well, just however it is, that it is clear, obvious, even commonsensical, when, truth be told, it is none of these things.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. All of us assume that certain things are simply a certain way. We don't think about them, we don't question them, we just pick them up and run with them. I am convinced that in our current state of development as human beings, there are some things we just can't know. We can only assume, but the difference between the masses and the thinking individual is that the latter has taken the time, expended the energy and become aware of what it is that s/he is assuming, believing, identifying as their own starting point for their point-of-view. In other words, what is needed more and more is that we make ourselves aware of just where it is we ourselves are coming from. It may not be an easy task, but it is a worthwhile one, to be sure.

On this particular note, I was recently, reading Rupert Sheldrake's insightful critique, The Science Delusion (published in the USA as Setting Science Free). He advances the thesis that the current edifice of "science" is built upon the foundation of ten unchallengeable "dogmas" that establish the framework and the ground rules for what is acceptable and legitimate. Rather than being incontrovertible facts, or truths, these are in fact, assumptions lacking basis in fact. They are, if you will, the "givens" which form the starting point of all inquiry. They must be accepted, they may not be challenged, for doing so relegates the perpetrator to the fringes of the scientific establishment. In a word, they are Modern Science's Ten Articles of Faith. (Sounds famililar, doesn't it?)

Well, what I would like to do over the course of the next few posts is to pick up on Sheldrake's critique but extend it to the so-called science of economics. This particular "science" has taken over center stage in all of our lives. We are now living in a thoroughly economized world. Economics and economic thought permeate every aspect of our existence. The economic argument is the killer argument, regardless of the topic, and the currently accepted school of thought, neoliberalism, has, like science itself in more general terms, turned itself into something of a religion. There are certain doctrines that they hold to be true and inviolable, even if, at bottom, they are mere assumptions masquerading as fact. They are not only beliefs, they are unconscious beliefs. My goal will be to explore the parallels and perhaps seek some possible solutions for the future.

We'll get down to business, so to speak, next time.

Reference
Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

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?