MIRRORS AND REFLECTIONS

"Shrimp, avocado and quinoa salad. Gluten free. Avoiding gluten provides a whole new dimension to food storage preparations."

from Murph

In the last number of months, there is an overload of articles in printed material and digital stuff on the internet describing some problem and who to blame for it. Many of these are excellently written, good analysis in a prose that is easily digestible.

Which raises again the question in my mind, “Are institutions, governments and businesses a reflection of involvement and agendas of the general population, or is the population a reflecting the businesses, institutions and governments agendas?” I suspect that the preponderance is located at the institutions reflecting the agendas of the citizenry. If we had had vast citizen involvement from the git go, even our constitution would be different than it is now. Most of our country's citizen involvement in decision making is by small fractional groups with their own agendas and has nothing to do with national consensus. When the decision was made to switch to a strong central government instead of a Federation of States, much of the debate on this issue was done behind closed doors with little non elite input into the process, and the few non elites that did take part left in disgust and they sure didn’t sign it. The infant propaganda machine went into overdrive at the time to convince the various states to ratify the new document, and at the state level, there again, was little input from the non elites of the time. So, we ended up with what we now have as a covenant between the citizens and a strong central government. Even the preamble to the constitution was thrown in as a piece of sarcasm to placate the masses, (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America), and how the Bill Of Rights was worded in such a way as to be able to bypass any legitimate intent of them. Notice how the Bill of Right’s statements are constantly being challenged and bypassed today.

As in any discussion of these issues, we have the problem of talking about what to do about the perceived problems. Arguments over ideas to cure the problems abound. Take a look at all that is written and discussed concerning energy. The plethora of cures is incredible, from the fantastic woo woo stuff to the far more practical consideration. So, someone concerned about this issue begins to wade through all the information they can find on this issue. I’ve spent considerable time on it, probably incomplete, but I have spent time looking at this information. The whole topic seems to want to revolve around a concept we call GREEN ENERGY or sustainable energy, (for the most part an oxymoron, similar to "sustainable growth"), in an attempt to supply substitute sources of energy for what we call fossil energy so that we can continue society in the same paradigm as we do presently, free use and very consumptive use of energy from whatever source. I have concluded this is another financial scam and bubble. It ain’t gonna fly. Your conclusion may be different. This does not take into consideration the concept of abiotic energy sources of which I cannot find absolute and uncontroversial support of it. Plus, even if true, I can find no information concerning field refreshment rate. It is alleged that if we have the technology to extract oil from extreme depths., there is a never ending supply. I haven’t seen financial figure on the cost of that technology yet either. We do know that oil extraction from deep sea reservoirs is very costly and has a good probability of screwing up the environment, ie. the Gulf disaster. I have also seen what seems to me to be ample evidence the natural gas extraction by “fracking” is of enormous detriment to the environment on multiple fronts. So much for technology trying to solve the energy problem and is instead producing other expensive, multiple and severe problems for human life.

So, after that little overview on the energy problem, what is to be done? It appears that trying to change how things are done by working within the system, public demonstrations, and voting, are mostly ineffectual. If that worked, we would not be where we are. The SYSTEM has just about everything locked up to prevent really mass support for anything. The SYSTEM has managed to fragment this society to an extreme degree, thus preventing consensus on any issue. This was done with full intent and malicious forethought. The old "divide and conquer" concept. There is no way that I can see where the general public can be made aware of what is/has been done to them at this time and most of that kind of information would be rejected by most people anyway. The only means I see to have significant change of some kind is for so huge a proportion of the populations in abject misery and hopelessness that they unite against the SYSTEM: that is called a revolution. Even if that takes place, a demi god will likely appear, representing the elites of course, to make “changes we can believe in” and there will be a shuffling of the power seating chairs and personnel and we will have some form of extreme control established over our lives anyway. Remember Napoleon after the French revolution or our own from English rule for that matter. We immediately stepped into a hierarchical form of government, with Washington at the head, an elitist if there ever was one.

In my opinion, until the mass of people realize that the elites ARE the problem, the essentials will not change. Otherwise, we will just go through the old shuck and jive that we have been subjected to for generations, with a few bones thrown over their shoulder to pacify the dissenters.

Is this change in perception likely to happen? Again, in my opinion, I am not optimistic about it. Not that I think it is 0% probable, just not very high probability. Of course that is a rather fluid dynamic and so some miraculous situational change could take place, principally in people’s attitudes about elite control of their lives. Around this, we have the predictions that this change is about to take place. Stay tuned, the universe may wink at us again.

That brings me back again to the title of this post. In my view of how things work, until a significant mass of humans do have this rather extreme change in perceptions, nothing will change for the better. The vast amount of humans on this planet will still be subject to exploitation, abuse, manipulation and torture to enrich the elite classes. I’m sure you have heard the defense of the elites and their vast wealth. It seems to center on the idea that they are the ones that supply jobs for us all to survive on. It is a bull shit argument, in my opinion, and hardly worth replying to. My god, whole societies have existed for thousands of years without that kind of wealth focus. Of course, the European mindset has wiped out most of these societies over a long periods of time and the non Europeans starting in pre biblical periods to the best of our written records. The whole top down hierarchy (coupled with patrimony) with the elites at the top is not a new idea, it is very old, and I suspect started with formalized religion, although I recognize that could be contested.

You may ask why I would write a post that is so general and broad, an overview. There is so much detailed information out there on any subject, masses of books written on any given subject, essays and commentaries abound, that my diving into any of these issues with a micro view is self defeating. I have a tendency to want to look at the macro view anyway. It gives me more information that has the potential to get myself and other people through the bad times that are coming by figuring what the bad times probably will look like instead of a complete focus on a single issue.

So I periodically put up posts of this nature hoping that someone new will read it and the following comments, so that those that have not been exposed to such thoughts before just might say “Eureka I get it!” and begin to investigate to determine validity. If you can stand the heat, keep holding the mirror up to peoples faces, some of them will get it. And of course, heat you will get. People have a fantastic ability to deny a reality that contradicts what they prefer to see and believe and often violently. Invariably, these perceptions and beliefs are to their own and most other peoples disadvantage. Sort of like the destruction and burning of the library of Alexandria, again, instituted and propagated by the elites of the time.

Archeologists are constantly turning up evidence of complex and large civilizations that have existed before the Sumerians, pre biblical stuff. It seems that our concepts of linear progression of human beings needs to be revised, and our whole time scale of events appears to be flawed. Of course these revelations tend to be viewed with derision by the biblical fundamentalists. Instead, for some reason I simply cannot comprehend, they like viewing god as the great trickster tempting us away from the faith. I am completely befuddled as to why god would do that, but whatever….. And here I thought Satan was the great trickster and tempter, ie. Taylor Caldwell, (sighing). Perhaps these folks just became a bit confused about who to blame. I find it rather amazing how politics and religion are so much the same. The strict adherence to a doctrine and ideology in the face of contradictory evidence, historically and immediate. Ok Palooka, back in the saddle on the horse of denial.

Charles Smith has two excellent articles pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy of the liberal and conservative doctrines and ideology in his last two posts. Have to get to the archives from this month to see the first one. And, of course, there are volumes written concerning the hypocrisy and contradictions in religious doctrine. All of which point out the state of denial concerning the reality with which we are surrounded. Of course, as expected, when these points are made to adherents of such doctrines, they are vehemently denied and sometimes violently. Bringing into focus the famous line, "You can't handle the truth". And, of course, the field of what we call "science" gets mixed up in all of this too. Instead of "science" discovering and explaining the complexity of our lives and environments, it all to often creates complexity to prove an assertion.

I am going to presume this post might stimulate a bunch of links and comments on the subject. Go for it. Somebody new may just stumble across this little blog site and gain some insights.