Are you shaking in your shoes yet?

It will not come as a surprise to any of you that I'm not the world's convinced optimist. Oh sure, things for most of us generally work out, not because we did anything in particular and certainly not because we deserved it. Most of us live in a lucky part of the world and hence most of us are luckier than most others.

This does not mean that I'm therefore and invariably a pessimist. Sure, there are aspects of pessimism that agree with me, but I, like Ben Franklin, am more pessimist out of self-protection than conviction.

And, yes, there have been any number of people who have "accused" me of cynicism ... but I ask why cynicism should have anything crime-like about it. George Bernard Shaw noted, "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." After all, when I'm in cynical mode, it turns out I'm more often right than I would like.

Recently, I read two good essays (both of which are much longer than everyday, internet-attention spans) by Henry A. Giroux and the other by Peter Koenig, both authors for whom I have a lot of respect. They weren't happy essays. They were well-reasoned, insightful, and thought-provoking. Giroux's was more about America; Koenig's more about Europe, but they had something in common: hope.

Giroux ended his essay with the line, ""Dark times are not ahead, they are here but that does not mean they are here to stay." Koenig wrote, "Rather than fearfully shutting up – wake up! Dare stand up fellow citizen – against the white collar onslaught of fraud and exploitation, against corruption of our elitist neoliberal system! Get rid of those deceiving politicians – the scum of greed and power. Expose them. Neutralize them." In other words, they both think that we can turn this game around.

Naturally, I'm not so sure, but I would like to think they're right. The problem as I see it is that too many of us don't take the time to get truly informed, won't make the effort to sort through the issues and facts, will fall back on our innate fear of power and violence, and will jump upon any excuse we can find why it's "not our job" to do anything about anything.

You know, the only reason it appears to be getting dark out there is because we allow it to happen.

The terror of the darkness

We have every right to be afraid ... day in and day out. If the climate doesn't do us in, it could be a military catastrophe when the "wrong people" get hold of weapons of mass destruction, or it could be the "right" people who already have them and are itching for a fight. It could be some natural disaster, and we seem to be getting more of them, in all sizes, shapes, colors and what at least feels like subjective frequencies.

And, if there isn't the big global cataclysmic apocalypse, there's always a new epidemic, an antibiotic-resistant strain of virus, a mass shooting, a slip of the tongue or wrong answer after being stopped by a cop, another armed whacko who decided enough's enough, or lawmakers who think the rest of us have it too good as it is and start taking away what little most of us have left. Yes, we have every reason to be afraid ... day in and day out.

And, let's be realistic. No, let's be honest with each other: most of us live our lives in a state of repressed terror. Oh, sure, we act like we've got thing under control. We act like we have the (or at least some of the) answers. But, deep down, especially at night, when the lights are off and we can't sleep, we're well aware of our terror of the darkness that surrounds us.

Quite recently, I read something that describes this perfectly:

We are, we believe, seeing some long-standing fractures and psychological tensions within [life's] sphere coming to a head: ‘Old certainties’, old landmarks, familiarities, longstanding ways of being – all are eroding, leaving people bewildered and angry – and ready to lash out (at the world because they feel it is no longer what they know and want it to be). The ‘world around them’ is perceived as ‘doing this to them’ (destroying their handholds in life which kept them psychologically secure). It – all of it – as it were, has become ‘their enemy’.

We feel threatened from all sides, regardless of our political and religious beliefs: black lives mattering, gay rights, abortions, financial bailouts and coup d'etats, terrorism, radicals of all kinds, the absence of G-d in government, an economic system gone haywire, illegal immigrants, tax give-aways for the rich and for corporations, intrusive government action, disrespect of authority, and the list goes on and on and on and on, and each of these items is, of course, an "enemy" to someone.

What fascinates me most about the situation, the threats, the list, is that it is all of our own making. Yes, dear reader, you and I and everyone else is responsible for how things are and why there are so many enemies "out to get us". They are all demons of our own creation, and they make the darkness upon which they thrive.

You don't have to have lost your eyesight to be blind

You can't solve a problem you can't identify. You also can't find solutions to most of life's problems on your own either.

There are many who look for guidelines to help them find their way through life: it might be religious precepts (like the 10 Commandments or Buddha's 8-Fold Path), it might be a sense of moral dignity, it really doesn't matter. When all is said and done, I truly believe that all the "Paths to Righteousness" or "Enlightenment" or "Salvation", I really don't care what you think you have to call it either, can be reduced to one very simple statement. Yes, that's how complex, how complicated human life on this planet is: one rule, guideline, suggestion is all we need.

My friend Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation has pointed out very clearly that all religions worldwide share one basic precept: they have some form, some expression of what is most commonly known as the "Golden Rule" (which can (and does) include even atheists, in the form of Kant's categorical imperative). And, on the more-than-secular side, the Australian comedian Jim Jefferies has reduced this notion to even simpler terms: "Try not to be an asshole."

We don't need any more than that ... BUT, and believe me this is a big "but": there are no exceptions. If you want to reduce things, reality, life, whatever, to simplest terms, this is it.

For most of us, however, this is too much to ask, and so we come with any number of excuses why that can't possibly be T-H-E solution. Truth be told, it's not a solution, it's a way to prevent solutionless problems from arising. That, on the other hand, is too big a deal for oh, so many people, especially those who love to go on and on about personal responsibility, in all its shapes and forms.

So, there you have it in a nutshell. That's it. Now, how many exceptions do you believe you should be allowed to make?

You don't have to have lost your hearing to be deaf

A long time ago, I tried to point out the difference between complexity and complicatedness. I'm sure a lot of folks didn't understand what I was talking about, but what I had to say then is every bit as relevant today as it was then.

Folks: the world isn't complicated, our lives our; our understanding of reality is; our beliefs and what we hold to be true and good are complicated. Lord knows. But none of it is complicated. Yes, the world, reality, nature, modern society, whatever, are complex. There is always more at work than we can ever know. Lord knows. But, it's not like that makes all that much of a difference.

Truth be told (and I'm here to tell you), life, existence, reality, whatever you want to call it, may be complex, but it is not complicated. You, they, I, all of us, have to deal with "life" (whatever we experience it to be) as it presents itself. There is hardly a thing we can do about what it is that confronts us. We have to deal with whatever it is that shows up. But ...

Being the simple person that I am, I have spent years, decades, searching for a simple rule of thumb that would help me deal with the vagaries of life, and I found that two, simple rules help me one whole helluva lot. What comes, comes; you've got to deal with whatever it is, and 99.9% of what comes our way has to do with decisions we made in the past. Sure, people get hit by busses, come down with terminal illnesses, and more, but there is not a single thing we can do about any of that. We have to learn to deal with it. I deal with it by trying my damnedest to remember every good thing about my involvement with those who have been taken or stricken. If they're still alive, then I want to do whatever I can to help make their lives a little less trying. Not always easy, to be sure, but always worth while.

On the other hand, it's not just what comes to me in life that matters. I, like everyone else, have an effect, often an impact on the world around me. I need to be aware of that, too. I'm not perfect (and most people I know will attest to that fact) nor do I think I ever will be. Nevertheless, I have to think about my part of life's equation.

How many of you are truly aware of yours?

Just how insane does it have to get?

The past couple of weeks have been trying, at least for me that have been. I'm not talking about my personal life. It's as "normal" as it's going to get, but what I see going on all around me is taking its toll.

It's not just the colonization of a nation within the European Union; it's not just the war-mongering and sabre-rattling towards Russia including supporting fascists in the Ukraine; it's not just the Turkish flip-flop on not knowing whether the Kurds or ISIS is the biggest perceived threat to them. No, it's the insanity that accompanies even the smaller issues.

It's the sheer ignorance that comes with ignoring anything that looks like a fact and stating one's opinion as if it was worth listening to. It's the hypocrisy of claiming to help when all you are really doing is harm. It's the perverse way that history gets twisted to make us think that Iran, for example, was responsible for 9/11, or that we can't identify terrorism when it's homegrown, or we rush to suspect terrorism where there is none but it suits our purposes, or how it is possible to believe the answer to gun violence is more guns, or how it is possible, in the allegedly freest country in the world that a former general can float the idea of internment camps for those not loyal enough to America. And this, in the 21st century.

There can be no violence great enough that will make us believe that violence is not the answer. There is no belief so distorted that it can't hide reality from us. There is no self-righteousness so great that it can't allow us to believe that we're the good guys and everybody else is bad.

That's our world today ... day in and day out. It's not just that the inmates are running the asylum, they've got most of us cheering them on.

Time to turn around

When beliefs become collective and unquestioned, they become a danger to us all. It doesn't matter if they are social, cultural, economic or religious. The result is always the same: massive death and destruction. I would like to think that we, as a species, are smarter than to keep falling for the same delusions, but I'm having a hard time maintaining that belief in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

When we were looking at individual beliefs and knowledge, it was clear that this overshadowing threat was simply not present. For all intents and purposes, it really doesn't matter what any one of us, what any given individual, believes. It does not have a significant, and certainly not a negative impact on the world at large (though any misguided individual can wreak a lot of havoc and cause a lot of harm). The problem arose when too many people bought into a given ideology without critically questioning where the beliefs should lead. In all of the examples cited, there was one common feature that was the ideologies ultimate undoing, namely its focus on one particular group to the exclusion of others.

All of these ideologies are drenched in us-vs.-them thinking. It can be the Master Race, or the Master Class, or the Greatest Country in the World ... it doesn't matter: each and every one of these belief systems, these ideologies, is exclusionary. Any individual or any group who is not part of the "elect" will either be forced to acknowledge the superiority of the "true believers" or they will be forced to pay the price for non-believing. Isn't there a way to avoid this pitfall? I would like to think there is, but I'm convinced it can't be found in the ideologies themselves. It can only be found within ourselves as individuals.

This is the reason that I suggested not long ago that an alternative to reading this summer might be some intense or serious reflection. I don't think it's a bad thing at all when we are sure, when we have reasons, when we can make clear to others what we believe. We can (and should) do this independent of anything that anyone else might think. We don't need to belong to a group, formal or informal, we only need to be ourselves and be aware of our own, individual approach to life. We need to be sure of ourselves and in doing so, we become an inspiration, or a role model, for others.

But where does one start? Anywhere is fine. You can start with your economic or political or social or cultural beliefs. It doesn't matter. The most basic question is "why do I believe ? The rest is up to you, your desire, your intent, and your attention span. Find out what you believe, then find out why. If you can't find any reasons, the time has come to ask yourself whether you want to continue believing that or not. Another place to start might be the question, "When and for what reasons does (my) life make sense to me?" Or maybe, "What is the single most important thing that I wished everyone believed?" If you're serious about it, the rest will follow, all on its own.

It is very likely that none of us individually can solve the world's problems. The good thing is, we don't have to. We've all got more than enough to do with getting our own houses (selves) in order. If you're having trouble making sense of everything "out there", the least you can do is try to make sense of whatever you find "in here".

Ideological dangers

Ideologies are dangerous things, very dangerous. Even if they start out with good intentions, I don't know of a one that ever turned out to everyone's benefit. The reason for this is while they start out in "beliefs" they don't necessarily turn into "faiths". That's merely the religious trajectory. Yes, all religions are ideologies, to be sure, but not all ideologies are religions (even if they appear so to non-adherents).

History is full of ideologies, but they taken to new levels (of nefariousness) in the 20th century and are getting even more dangerous in the 21st. You'd think by now we'd recognize what is happening, but apparently we don't. We need to get smart quickly, however, or we could be in for really big trouble.

The classic example of an ideology is Nazism: a troubled connection between fascism (an economic belief) combined with a religious reverence for a certain mythology (a cultural belief) with a good portion of pseudo-science based on language and blood lines (a socio-biological belief). Yes, it has a little bit of everything and came close to destroying the world. Another, more recent one is Communism (though we should properly call this Leninism or Stalinism), which was primarily economic and social in its expression. And, most recently (and we're still on the secular side of things), we have neoliberalism (economic beliefs) or American exceptionalism (cultural beliefs). What they all have in common is a blind belief in certain precepts, none of which are supported or substantiated by hard facts, by hard evidence. What is more, in each of these examples, we are told there is evidence but we are never shown it. We are told that this or that ideology is correct, but the "proof", the demonstrations, the evidence is never, ever specific. It is a general statement, often amounting to "and what's the alternative?". In fact, neoliberalism is based solely on this argument, made most vehemently by Margaret Thatcher: "TINA (there is no alternative)"! Yet, there is plenty of hard evidence as to why any one of these ideologies is simply wrong.

This is, of course, the heart of the matter. As we saw a few posts ago, when our individual beliefs are threatened or challenged, we simply fall back to defending them. We simply disregard (or try to discredit) the evidence. The same is true of our collective beliefs; that is, of our ideologies. This is an all the more dangerous situation in that no one individual is responsible for the consequences, and there always are consequences: with Nazism it was obvious (Holocaust, devastating world war), with Communism too (state terror, the gulag, millions of deaths). The same holds, if we're honest, with neoliberalism (see Pinochet in Chile, the disparity between rich and poor, the economic subjection and killing of, well, millions worldwide) and American exceptionalism (Iraq and Afghan wars, the drone program; that is, millions of deaths). And I don't even need to address religious ideologies; one of our more poignant current problems.

Personally, I think it's hard not to associate massive death with ideologies, and it is obvious that they are massively dangerous. It's time to break ranks. It's time to get our own, individual thoughts and beliefs straight. It is way past due that we take the time to figure out just what it is that we believe.

The power of questioning power

Most things come full circle ... well, they do if you allow them enough time to take their course. The question of power and the question of questioning power is one of those things.

When you get right down to it, "power" -- whatever it is, whoever is exercising it, in which form it comes or in which systems it disguises itself -- has one, and only one, "tool": fear. Power is powerful, because you are afraid. It is that simple.

One of my biggest heros, one of the individuals who walked this earth for whom I have the greatest and utmost respect, used to preface many, many things that he said with the simple words, "Fear not, fear not ..." In modern phraseology: "Don't be afraid ... ". Yes, yes, yes, we have gone through all the trivializations of this simple idea, and so we haven't come to realize just how trivial the idea is. And now, we return, after such a long diversion, to the root of the problem. How can you "speak truth to power", or question, even challenge, authority without real risk of repression? It's quite simple, really: ask questions.

Although I grew up in an age that scholastically lauded the Socratic method, questioning authority was simply something "you just didn't do". It was impolite, cheeky, pushy, cocky, and downright, insulting. Still, there are ways to simply "ask a question" that is none of these. What is more, when asked in the proper way, in the proper tone, at the proper time, a question can, and most often does, appear as a simple quest for knowledge and wisdom from someone who apparently and supposedly "knows". It is one thing to rebuke a claim, an assertion, a statement, but it is quite another to not respond to someone who is early seeking "to know".

Power always has the responsibility to answer a well-meant question, even if it may not want to answer at all. Power cannot simply reject a question, for to do so would expose it for what it really is: power for power's sake. Yet, we can learn from the three-year-old: keep questioning until the questioned can no longer answer, until his/her own power-based logic simply collapses upon itself. And, believe me, it will eventually do just that.

While fear is an extremely powerful tool, if not a weapon, it suffers from a significant, inherent weakness: it cannot stand in the light of Truth. I may not know the "truth", that is certain, but I believe (and Power believes) that Truth can ultimately be found. The way to the truth is questioning: pursuing the path, via the method, of perhaps the greatest philosopher who ever lived, Socrates.

Power knows how to utilize fear to its own advantage. Of that much, I am sure. However, Power is not immune from fear itself. And, if there is anything that Power fears, it is the power of the question ... the simple question. So, never, ever be afraid to ask "the next question", for it is always, without doubt, the most important question to ever be asked.

Question power before it questions you.

Question power

Power can be all-powerful ... well, at least it can be conceived as such. Most folks that I know would rather avoid any association with power, let alone a confrontation with it. As the Germans put it, "offering your forehead to power" (Macht die Stirn bieten), can reduce your height by about twelve inches (30 cm) and your weight by about 11 lbs (5 kg) very, very quickly. That is a tried-and-true method that power employs, but, as we saw, over time, as the shift from the merely physical to the more ethereal has taken place, a shift in "execution" of power has taken place as well.

In most places around the globe, we don't lop off people's heads anymore. Most peoples and nations have come to the realization that the same effect can be achieved with a lot less visual vividness. Sure, you can still imprison folks for long periods of time, knowing full well that "out of sight" (that is, not in the daily press" means "out of mind" (that is, forgotten). Or, you can simply "talk louder". The volume of mainstream media is always higher than anything an individual can offer. Another approach is to discredit the questioner: given enough money, I suppose, everybody's missteps can be found out and exposed, especially in the days of the Internet. What all of these "methods" have in common, however, is fear. You could be charged with a crime, even if you didn't commit one; most people are tried "in the press" before they ever get to trial. Convictions are then merely insurance. The mainstream media, since it is privately controlled, is more interested in profits than truth, so they can afford to make you a case instead of making a case for you, and they will benefit (i.e., profit) from it, in the end. What is more, given the lax security and the reluctance of most "good citizens" to challenge the "status quo", innuendo, even in cyberspace, can literally destroy an individual before s/he has a chance to defend him/herself. I know very few people who would be willing to risk going through any of that for any reason. You don't have to chop off heads to instill fear. At least, not any more.

Still, as long as fear dictates our lives, as long as fear is our primary motivation, whoever or whatever is in power will succeed. It has always been this way, and it will continue to be this way, unless we change. And, I'm pretty sure, that's really far down on the ol' priority list.

It's too bad, really. One doesn't have to start a rebellion, a physical, military, violent, armed revolution to initiate change. The most effective change is never public, it is private. Here's a very simple thought experiment: imagine that you had no fear of anything any more: what would/could you do? Think about it. Because we hang on too many "things" (our house, car, savings account, possessions, you-name-it) we are afraid that someone can or will come and take it away from us. It could be a thief, but it could be the "government". Why the "government" would want it, given that it extracts exorbitant taxes from you, often without you even knowing it is doing so, and it has you regulated, legislated, controlled, and subdued by the mass of legislation you have to live with. You are allowed to "talk a good (maybe even "tough") game", but if they decide you're done, for whatever reason, you're outta here. And that, dear reader, is the price you pay for (alleged) freedom.

And that's why I say, quite simply, question power, before it questions you.

The question of power

Lord Acton, who most of us have never heard of, once said something that just about everyone of us has not only heard, but said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's not a direct quotation, but it is a direct expression of the sentiment he wished to express. This is one of those old sayings, those "wise, old" adages, that we let slip from our lips without a second('s) thought, which may be why we don't really get it; that is, really understand what the good Lord was trying to say.

As I confessed last time, questions really got to me. But if there ever was a concept that occasionally rivaled that enthrallment, it would be the notion of "power". Here is another used and abused notion that everybody talks about, that everyone thinks they understand, but that is, without a doubt, one of the most illusive notions that we've ever come up with.

First, we have the concept of "enabling things to function". We need power to drive the steam engine and power to run our computers and keep the lights on. Power is what is talked about when we think of any kind of machine or gadget. We also relate "power" to "authority": those who can tell us what we may or may not do, what is permitted and what is not. And, we also use the concept to describe whoever or whatever can ensure that certain things happen, as in legislative power, or "the power of the pen". OK, in the latter instance there is no ensuring, but potentially a lot of influencing. When it comes to physical power, we have lots of good science to "explain" to us how it works, why and how machines are efficient or why some people can benchpress hundreds of pounds and others can't do a single push-up. When it comes to other kinds of power, though, we're pretty much lost.

Again, Shakespeare's Macbeth is ready at hand: it exemplifies Lord Acton's statement, hundreds of years before Lord Acton expressed it. It indicates that this is not a new problem we are dealing with. In the meantime we know (probably more than we want to) about the "power of the sword", "power of nuclear weapons", the (fire)power of the American military, the "power of the 'almighty dollar'", the (alleged) "power of the press", even the "power of persuasion", and many more. We quickly begin to realize what a complex and intricate concept "power" can be.

All of these phrases show examples, to be sure, but none of them, and certainly not any one of them, defines the notion of "power". Why? Because "power" is always the same and never the same, all at the same time. There was a time when "physical power", in any of its forms -- strength, superior weapons -- played the dominant role. There was a time when "political power", in any of its forms -- diplomacy, alliances -- was most important. And now, we live in a time, when the "power of perceptions" plays the dominant role. We all still have to deal with the same, old same-old, but it comes in ever-changing guises.

It doesn't amaze me at all that most folks feel powerless in the face of power.

The power of questions

Anyone who knows me knows there is one "confession" I must always make, especially when I meet new people or have the opportunity to work in new groups: I absolutely and unequivocally love questions. I do. I am fascinated by them ... mesmerized sometimes. They stir my imagination and unlock secrets. They are, without a doubt, the most powerful intellectual and analytical tool -- if used properly -- that I have ever had the privilege to use.

These days, I believe that questions are terribly underestimated and their true power has never been properly recognized.

All of this started, of course, when I was going through teacher training at college, oh, so many years ago. In "my day", there was only one, accepted pedagogical (teaching) method: the Socratic method. Lesson plans described a topic, a digestible amount of material, and the way to get the students from wherever they were to wherever the lesson was to take them was to be achieved solely through the use of questions. It was frowned up that the teacher provide any "answers", be it information or -- heaven forbid -- interpretations or declarations. It was up to the teacher to guide the students to discover knowledge for him or herself, solely through the use of appropriate questioning techniques. This is considered more than old-fashioned these days, but, truth be told, this was a very old method when I became exposed to it. If you want to see brilliant examples of how it works, I recommend reading Plato. His writings are nothing other than Socratic dialogs (for Socrates always plays the main role), and they are every bit as informative and didactic today as they were at the time they were written. Some things simply refuse to change. (And anything that does, and anything that stands the test of time like questions do, deserve a second, third, or even an infinite number of looks).

And when did this fall out of favor as a teaching method? I don't know. I suspect, however, that it was about the time that "somebody decided" that the results of standardized tests or the regurgitation of factual knowledge was more important than the ability to think, to explore, to discover, and to search (for the truth). Oh, I'll be the first to admit it: questions can be uncomfortable, as any parent on the planet will tell you. There isn't a parent alive or dead who hasn't been exasperated (positively or negatively) by their 3-year old who will not give their questioning a rest. Once you fork down that "why" path, there is never an end in sight. Nor should there be. What we don't do as parents, or what enough parents don't do, or what most parents do not encourage, is that they continue asking those questions. If there is one ability in our children that we should never, ever discourage, it's the asking of questions. I firmly believe that the world would not be in the shape it is, that we would not be confronted with all the challenges that we have to deal with, if we had been encouraged as children to question more.

To me, it's never really been a priority to just "keep on trucking". No, for me, it's important to "keep on questioning."

Ideological subterfuging

It could be that I mentioned it somewhen before, but I love neologisms. New words, that is. I love thinking them up, and I love to watch the pained and sometimes even surprised expressions on people's faces when I use them around them for the first time. Oh, I've had downright "battles" with people over such words. They're argument is, if it's not in the dictionary, it's not a word. I say, in Shakespeare's day, they didn't have dictionaries and if they had had them, I'm not sure he would have cared. He is -- and I know I have said this before -- is my absolute hero, idol -- the Master of Masters of the English Language -- as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel even worthy to walk in his shadow, but that's not going to stop me from trying to sneak into the shade from time to time.

There has long been a lot of debate, not necessarily in public, but certainly in certain academic circles, about the relationship between language and thought. Whorf is probably the most widely known name in this regard. He postulated a direct link between language and how we access reality. I tend to think he's got a point, and whether language influences, or even determines, thinking or vice versa is not the real point for me. There is a relationship, undeniably. I am tending to believe it is symbiotic, not unidirectional, nor causal, but I still have to think a bit about that. What I am sure of, however, is that our experience of reality is most certainly influenced by the language(s) we speak.

Even this is, of course, too much for some people. They like to think they've got a complete, comprehensive, and objective grip on things. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can know a lot. We can be right about a lot of stuff. Our perceptions can conform to objectively verified, factual realities, but we never really have a sound "grasp" of things. We only know our experience of things, and that, dear reader, is the definition of subjectivity. You and I have different experience sets, hence we must, by definition, have differences in our perceptions of reality. This is not to say that we can't agree about many, many things, but there will never be a 100% match between your (perception of) reality and mine. That's OK. I can live with that. Unfortunately, there is a large (and growing?) number of people who can't.

Language is certainly one perceptual filter, but never, ever underestimate the power of ideologies (as I've talked about the last two posts) in filtering our experiences. Ideologies, once we believe in them, are personally dangerous in that they are so obvious to us that we fail to question them. We assume that their filtering is accurate. In most cases, we're not even aware that they are there and at work.

So, how does one "protect" oneself? Is there a way to at least mitigate their effects? But of course. There is no problem, no hazard, no disease or illness, no anything that Nature has not provided a cure/antidote/help for. In this case, our own human nature comes to our aid. We humans, believe it or not, are the only living species that can question.

Question everything.

Ideological abusings

The dominant ideology these days, as I said last time, is Neoliberalism, unbridled capitalism. Its purpose, of course, is the justification of the outrageous economic inequality that we are all experiencing and the exploitation of the climate and natural resources that are becoming ever more threatening.

The foundation of this particular ideology is what has become known as the Washington Consensus, first expressed in 1989 by John Williamson, the then chief economist and vice-president of the World Bank. Its goal is simple: the privatization of the world, and this by means of a very few simple principles:

• Tax reform: fewer taxes on the rich; more taxes for the working and the poor
• Total deregulation of all financial markets and the worldwide economic sector
• Protection of foreign investment and investors
• Increased protection for private property
• Reduction of national deficits
• Elimination of public subsidies
• Elimination of the public sector

Now, there is nothing in this list that we haven't seen being put into practice (well, except, of course, for the elimination of public subsidies ... as long as major corporations can get an extra hand from government, one shouldn't become too radical), but there is also nothing in this list that is a good idea because it is based on sound experience.

The rich and the benefactors of capital gains received preferential treatment, as was recently noted around Tax Day in America. The deregulation of capital and financial markets produced an economic meltdown that the little tax-payers got to bail out; the next (I believe, more severe) crash is on its way. And, we only need to look at what is being done to Greece (or look back to what was done to Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Poland, or even Russia) to see what the results of these principles are. Yet, even though there is no factual evidence to support these principles, they are pushed and propagandized to such a degree that even their victims have begun to believe in them.

And so we are made to believe that this is how the world "is", that there are natural, economic laws that decide who succeeds and who fails, and yet not a word of it is true, nor can it be demonstrated by example. The propagandization of the ideology, however, and we should remember that all propaganda is based on fear, instills fear into the heart of the so-called middle class, those who thought they had risen above all that had been so painfully achieved on May Day.

I am ashamed to say that they got my generation to buy into this fantasy, but as is so often the case, converts are the worst. We have come to love and defend our oppressors. How sad is that?

Ideological musings

May Day could have been so worth celebrating. Too bad all we're left with is those long demythologized notions about the rights of spring. OK, that could be a reason for celebrating too, but we decided in our enlightened ignorance that anyone who came before ourselves really didn't know all that much in the end. We think so lowly of our forebears and ancestors that you really have to wonder how you can explain that we have survived as long as we have as a species.

Of course, we're poised to take care of that too. You can lie to yourself all you want, you can have governments censuring employees (in a supposedly free country), but you can't change the fact that we humans are doing our damnedest to pollute and heat up our planet so badly that Mother Nature will have no choice but to retaliate. But that's a discussion for another time.

No, what I wanted to pick up on was an idea in my last post that might have been overlooked by some of you, namely the part "ideology" played in the workers' defeat. We tend to think that when the Soviet Union collapsed it was because our own ideology proved to be "right", but as Wadsworth points out in the movie Clue, "Communism is simply a red herring." And that it is. No, there's a new ideology on the street to get us all, and it's known "officially" as Neoliberalism, or, for the less erudite among you, unbridled capitalism.

First, let us get clear on what an ideology actually is. In simplest terms, it's an "idea" posing as a "science" (-ology), that is an objective, clear, and proven way of knowing about the world. The key here, though, is the word "posing", for ideologies are diametrically opposed to science of any kind. When it comes to ideologies it is not so important that you know. It is much more important that you believe. And that's why they're so dangerous.

Every single ideology is there for one reason only: to interpret the world, to tell us how the world "is". To do this, it constructs a system of expression and symbols that follow the ideology's own internal, relative autonomous logic (cf. Jean Ziegler, Retournez les fusils!: Choisir son camp, Paris, 2014). While that all sounds relatively harmless, it ideologies are belief systems that provide justification for the actions of its believers. For example, the ideology of American Exceptionalism says it's OK for the USA to do things that they believe others have no right to do, such as overthrow governments or assassinate foreign politicians who resist America's right to do as it pleases, simply because it is in a unique position in the world. Or, the ideology of, say, Calvinistic predestination in the 16th century which was provided justification for the rise to political power of the commercial class and even the genocide of indigenous populations in the name of expanding trade, for example, in the American, Dutch and British colonies.

In other words, a given ideology is not based on facts, evidence or experience, rather it is a way of seeing and explaining the world that is grounded in a set of beliefs that are then used to say why what someone or some group is doing is good, right, and proper. Challenges, of course, usually come from outside, but not always.

May Day: past but not forgotten

May Day, a holiday in these parts, has just past. I've said before how much I like it, but one reason I've never mentioned before is the irony of the holiday. To most people, over here, over there, it's all about those "dirty commies" and socialists who are out to destroy the world. It was on this holiday, the day of workers' solidarity, that the Cold-War "communist" regimes marched out their military hardware to remind themselves of how great they are. That was ironic because May Day as the day for labor was an American idea. And it is ironic today, because America has finally almost achieved what they couldn't do 150 years ago, namely destroy (organized) labor.

Yes, that 8-hour day that we all wax emotionally about was a victory by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) May-Day protests back in the 1880s. Most of what we consider "normal" about work, like some kind of security, an 8-hour day, paid overtime, weekends, perhaps even some benefits came to America only through the radical efforts of the IWW and other labor organizations in the face of bloody, brutal repression by moneyed interests, the government, and the police. No, the workers won the day, and what we consider workers' rights were granted by countless, tireless, fearless people like you and me, not by an aggressive military or a benevolent government act. But the forces of oppression are regained their ground, because they were able to dupe and hoodwink the very people they were oppressing into believing that poor people want to take their hard-earned gains away from them.

Actually, the white-collaring of the workforce, the relentless off-shoring of manufacturing, the automation of mining and production all played their part, but the victory that was won was made possible by all those poor saps who believed they were better than mere workers, entitled to more, and above the masses, unwashed as they are. No, it was those of us who worked by did not labor who actually betrayed our blue-collar fellows by believing the lie that we were somehow better, and deserving of more.

Of course, no sooner do you have it than someone (usually the giver) is taking it away. Individual, not collective-bargained, contracts means fewer raises. It also means longer hours, more required dedication to "the company", that is, more loyalty, more accepting of fake excuses for rising profits but only rising salaries and bonuses just a level or two above our own. And too many have passed this acquiescence and sycophantry onto our children, and we push them off to college, whether it's worth it or not, to suffer under intolerable and onerous burdens of debt, in the hopes of better life which will most likely never come, because someone once painfully won the road to it for you, and you think it's now your due. But it's not. You did nothing to earn it.

How ironic is that?

Flights of fancy

Talk about making things up ... one has already and next week the other of the two-ring circuses is going to start in America. I'm talking about the national conventions for the two big parties. And a party they will be, I am sure: lots of balloons, confetti, streamers, zippy music, yelling, singing, jumping, bumping, dancing and applause ... lots and lots of applause. But who's being applauded?

If I remember the last time I watched part of one of these spectacles correctly, it was a lot of just applauding oneself. For example, as a delegate, you got to put on a funny hat and hold up a sign and jiggle it or wave it when you were told, and every single one of those delegates was from absolutely the best state America has to offer. It will be the best convention ever held, in the best city by the best hosts, and it will produce the best results ever. Both of them. It makes you wonder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against fun. I'm all for it. I don't think we have enough fun in our lives, but the lunacy that is about to be unleashed upon us, is really not my idea of fun. In a certain regard, the shows in Tampa and Charlotte are simply emblematic of what's wrong with America these days. Really. I'm not bashing, I'm just saying. Over the next couple of weeks, I'll have a lot of explaining to do, because for an outsider, well, it's just hard to get your head wrapped around all that craziness.

Don't we already know who's going to be nominated? If the platforms have been established already - and they have - why hold a convention? If the campaign approaches have already been decided upon - and they have - what's the convention for? Hasn't the real election campaign already begun? If the people to run were picked ahead of time, what's the purpose of the convention? I don't know, and that's what I'll tell all who ask me. But, it's not really what I think.

I remember the first convention I ever watched ... OK, saw parts of ... it was the Republican convention in the run-up to the 1956 election. I was home sick and that was all that was on either of the two channels we had back then. I didn't understand much of it then, and it was unbearable to watch. (No wonder I became a voracious reader. It wasn't so limiting.) Back then, my parents really couldn't explain to me what the show was all about, and now, so many years later, I'm not better positioned to explain to my friends and co-workers what's going on either.

No, back then, it was just too silly. A whole lot of hoopla, and not a lot of substance. I don't think it has changed, but all the heads will be talking and "analyzing" and discussing, and my friends and co-workers are going to be asking what it's all about. It was silly then; it's silly now. And for the next couple of weeks, that's the impression America will be making on the rest of the world: silly.

Exaggerated?

Of course I have my own ideas of how things should be. And, yes, I have my own visions of what could be in the future. But -- and I think anyone who has been following the latest thread with a modicum of attention will agree -- I'm doing my best not to fix the blame, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that what they think is wrong. All I'm asking -- and this happens rarely enough -- is that you give some serious thought to what you do think. Why? Because it may be more important than ever.

Don't get me wrong, though I sound like it at times, I'm not really a doom-and-gloomer. I may not be the most optimistic soul out there, but I'm realist enough to know that what comes will come and we'll have to deal with whatever that is when it appears. I do believe, however, that we still have a chance, albeit a slight one, to do something about the future, even if the system itself can no longer be fixed. I'm sticking by my guns on that one (at least until someone convinces me otherwise). The point is, if you haven't engaged your brain before opening your mouth, you're just pumping out hot air, no more.

If all we have to deal with is hot air, we've got no chance at all. I'm concerned because when we distill the entire situation down to its essence, it's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. In fact, it's not about right and wrong at all. It's about good and bad: what's good for everyone, not just a few; what's bad for everyone, not just a growing majority. We're not dealing anymore with economics or politics or even sociology. No, we're dealing with morals: the most basic, fundamental understanding of what is good and what is bad. It's a matter of morality. And for that reason, our ability to reason and discuss is more important than ever. Morality can never be edicted, it can only be agreed.

But even here, in the most (in my mind, at least) important aspect of human existence, we have lost our ability to reason, discuss and debate. We've turned -- or are at least in the process of turning -- our morality discourse into another struggle for power. What the fewest people realize is that this is one of the most dangerous turn of events there can be. If we get this one wrong, we just could be doomed ... at least as most of us think we understand the term. There's simply a lot at stake.