Juli 2009:

Sozialer Wandel kommt auf die Kommunikation. Great efforts have resulted in fine books, stories for films and books, and there have been some wonderful speeches. But it must really start and end with the conversation wherein the top topic is the issues of the day approached honestly and without fear.

When people talk about a problem openly, then there is a chance of solving it. There may be no solution, but the attempt to converse about it may have other beneficial effects and lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

by Jan Lundberg at culture change

With species extinction now at the highest rate since the disappearance of the dinosaurs, one might assume this crisis is on everyone's mind and discussed widely. One would be wrong. No one knows if it's 100 species a day, many of which have not been named. Massive species loss has been known for many years, but it is “old news” or “boring.”

Neither are other critical topics discussed enough to match their import: melting of the ice caps and glaciers, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, out of control arms sales, ongoing starvation or malnourishment of hundreds of millions of people, overpopulation, the greed of financiers openly stripping nations of wealth, etc.

In reality, they are all related. It comes down to compassion and taking action wisely. When people manage to discuss the most pressing issues, they can see past the immediate crisis possessing the power to distract. Then a whole-systems approach can serve to unite people into one movement.

In the 1960s there was “The Movement.” People had many definitions for it, and some members were more interested in stopping the bombing over Indochina than securing all rights for the Afro-American population, for example. But The Movement included those concentrating on expanded consciousness, back-to-the-land agrarianism, communalism, armed revolution, women's liberation, environmental protection. It could all be seen as a whole: challenging “plastic society” and the false materialistic values of the flag-waving pro-war older generation.

We can blame the end of The Movement on its splintering into separate movements, or on the end of the Vietnam War draft, or the commercialization and corporatization of popular music, or assassinations of leaders in the 1960s — or all of them combined. The biggest mistake was to stop having the conversation about society in general. Instead people began to take the easy way out and earn more money and stay out of trouble, Those who did not cease the conversation became known as activists, and it was no longer “the youth” or “the students” or “The Movement.” Instead activists were on the fringes and mocked by “being stuck back in the 1960s.” The federal COINTELPRO operations against organizations and leaders took a toll, and there were pleasant distractions such as disco music or take your pick.

Social change comes down to communication. Great efforts have resulted in fine books, stories for films and books, and there have been some wonderful speeches. But it must really start and end with the conversation wherein the top topic is the issues of the day approached honestly and without fear.

When people talk about a problem openly, then there is a chance of solving it. There may be no solution, but the attempt to converse about it may have other beneficial effects and lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

When people avoid talking about serious matters, much harm can be done by others who are intent on opportunism or worse. Distracting people with other issues is therefore the prime tool for those trying to maintain an advantage in the status quo. It can also be said that the main tool is enslavement through economic dominance — a giant distraction from realizing a liberated life style. Many robotic or sheep-like people today have no concept of liberation except personal enrichment.

Talking about food security

We would not know it from the corporate media or our politicians, but we should be worrying big time that food supply will fail untold millions of people. All one has to do is look at energy, topsoil, pressures of the market (such as rising demand for food), and mix in some catastrophic weather that is assured, and we have a huge disaster ahead. It is just a matter of time.

There is a movement to appreciate local food, slow food, organic food. But it has not reduced the average number of miles a piece of food travels via petroleum in the US: 1,500. To produce industrial food — probably 95% of what is eaten in the US — ten caloric units of fossil-fuels produce one caloric unit of food. Farm workers are among the lowest paid in the nation, which is strange when everyone wants to eat. Time in the hot sun, subjected to pesticides and possible immigration raids, make the profession all the less attractive. There is no longer a designation for farmer in the US census when so few people live on their own farms anymore. It was no wonder that when Max Yasgur, who hosted the Woodstock Festival in 1969, began his welcome with “Now I'ma farmer…” at that he was drowned out by cheers and applause. That was The Movement expressing itself for nature. Get the record album and hear it.

Today I picked three pint-sized baskets of three kinds of berries. It took me about an hour, even when the season is just right. I still had to pay eight dollars for the fruit. It is not designated as organic, which would allow for a higher price, but it was unsprayed. If the value of my time is $20 an hour, my overall cost was $28. I spent no money on transportation because I bicycled. There's a problem we don't have a name for: a labor problem? We are not producing our own food locally because we “cannot afford to.” Rather, we subsidize the food in unsustainable ways while upper classes of consumers can afford to pay others to grow, gather, process, truck and prepare the food. This system only works for a few people in a division-of-labor society geared toward surpluses for the elite: ie, Western Civilization.

In the berry patch a father said bitterly to his daughter, “You guys dragged me here and I don't have time for all this work.” She replied “It's fun!” I'm glad to report that he had no further retort. Perhaps he should have a conversation with his family and friends about what he thinks he can do with his time, what he is allowed to do, and how he may provide for his family as well as raise a child directly.

Inane conversation or prattling

Mehr alarmierender als leeres Gerede und die Vermeidung von kritischen Fragen nicht reden überhaupt, wenn einige der moderne Mensch in einem Computer-Spiel Welt zu leben, oder sie meist kommunizieren in Isolation mit einem Handy oder E-Mail. Von diesen wissen viele nicht mehr viel im Weg der Freundschaft und Familie ist etwas, gelegentlich besuchen. Inzwischen ist Konversation noch Schlüssel, besonders wenn es über den persönlichen Bedarf zu einem anderen Menschen (auch nur zu diskutieren Kleidung oder Bier) verbinden kann erhöht sein. Die Kunst der Konversation wird immer schwieriger zu begegnen. Die Leute scheinen nicht, Zeit zu haben.

Bevor wir zum Ausgangspunkt des Gesprächs auf unser Überleben arbeiten können, ist das, was alle um uns herum, die für die Diskussion geht hin? Meine Beobachtung ist, dass die Qualität des Gesprächs fast immer und überall inane. Kriege, die im Namen der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika gekämpft, im Irak und Afganistan, sind keine Primzahl Themen der Diskussion oder Debatte zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt durch "die durchschnittliche Person." Immerhin, es gibt endlose Promi-News, die neuesten Arbeitslosenstatistik, die neueste iPhone-Technologie, ein Feuer in Südkalifornien, Präsident Obamas jüngsten Verlautbarung über die medizinische Betreuung und ein verlorenes Hündchen in einer anderen Stadt nach einem herzzerreißenden Odyssee gefunden.

Zugegeben, es gibt auch Neuigkeiten in den Hintergrund des Klimawandels, Attentate, Insolvenzen von iconic Konzerne und andere ernste Geschichten. Aber es ist nie ein roter Faden in der Corporate News Medien oder in ein Politiker-Rede. Auf der Straße sind Sie eher etwas Reales zu hören: "Das System saugt." Wenn es das tut, was wir tun dagegen?

Es sollte nicht verwundern, dass die Qualität der Gespräche - egal ob im Wohnzimmer der "durchschnittliche Person", in dem Mitarbeiter Speisesaal oder in einer Bar oder Party - ist in der Regel albern. Sportnachrichten oder die Überprüfung einer TV-Show sind die Favoriten, zusammen mit Klatsch oder Geschichten über ein Wochenende Abenteuer. Wenn die Themen der Politik oder Ökologie auftauchen, werden diese mit dem Argument, Witze und Spott, so oft sind Aussagen zur Sorge behandelt. Selten ist ein Gelübde: "Ich werde dem Fahrrad zur Arbeit und loszuwerden meinem Fernseher." Als für den alltäglichen Geplänkel mit Sinn, kann es Vergleiche von Haus-und Kleingärten Techniken.

Die Wiederbelebung der Wirtschaft wieder auf Wachstumskurs ist das heißeste Thema in der schweren Bereich, mit dem Klimawandel Ranking ganz unten. Letzteres wird von einigen verweigert oder ist zu gruselig zu bewältigen. Die Tendenz ist, damit "die Experten" oder Beamte mit ihr umgehen - wie sie mit der Wirtschaft und alles andere zu tun.

Sie sind nicht bringt uns Frieden. Sie sind nicht zu stoppen Artensterben. Sie sind nicht die Umverteilung des Reichtums oder sperrte den weißen Kragen Kriminelle (Madoff ist eine Ausnahme, eine sop). Wenn die Lineale nicht ausschließen sollte, sollte dies nicht ein wichtiges Thema der Gespräche sein?

Was wir brauchen, ist das Gespräch, das nicht passiert. In den 1960er und in den 1970er Jahren die politisch Gleichgesinnten Straße threater Gruppe Die Yippies (Youth International Party) nahm die Sache selbst in die Hand, die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Probleme zu bringen. Eine Methode war Störung des business as usual. Stunts inklusive brennende Dollar-Scheine, Nähen der amerikanischen Flagge auf, seine Hose, oder Küssen während des Studiums Vorlesungen. Ein Buch von einer der wichtigsten Initiatoren, Jerry Rubin, stand unter dem Titel Do It. (Der Autor wurde ein Börsenmakler, ein Schicksal, wahrscheinlich aus dem Verlust seiner Hippie-Support-System.)

Who is “doing it” today? Bloggers? Internet activists? Artists? Obama? There's some good journalism and activism, but the masses of people are somehow left out of the conversation. They want to be left out, when they avoid discussing serious issues relating to their survival on an imperiled planet. The question is, can they be made to discuss it before things are totally out of control, when rational discussion may be impossible? No end of secret government subversion can overcome a big enough conversation.

We Are Many, They Are Few – Really?

If all the able-bodied homeless people in the greater New York City area decided to converge on Wall Street and seize some wealth or demand housing, they could do it. If the millions of minorities discriminated against by ruthless corporate employers staged sit ins and used economic boycotts, such action could earn large concessions. But instead, masses are herded like sheep by a small number of agents of the elite. The corporate state does have effective tools such as the military, prisons, police — the “stick” — to go with bribes and perks and promises of mild reform — the “carrot.” Yet, numerically, if enough people wanted to bring about a truly equitable society, or in particular end the unpopular wars, this could be done with little or no violence in a short amount of time.

The reason it does not happen is that the right conversations are not taking place except by the very few. Even with the huge and growing number of people on mood-control and psychiatric drugs, that sad population unwittingly enriching pharmaceutical companies rather than actually healing is in good enough condition to talk sensibly and stimulate some community action.

The greatest crowd control of all time may be happening right now when a popular US president can give the idea that he is pursuing meaningful change. The sleight of hand includes the idea that he can make substantial change. Obama knows his limitations, as every top politician comes to know. In addition to promising improvements and the impossible return to a growth economy — and the trickle-down prosperity that never really worked — Obama and his allies have some key issues dear to many hearts. Unfortunately, they are bogus: the technological fix for climate mitigation, cleaner energy upon peak oil, and better cars. Obama is such a nice and eloquent guy that most people want to believe he will bring about more jobs, higher wages, peace, and an end to terrorism, the threat to polar bears, etc.

Smooth propaganda — hard for most people to pick apart:
President Barack Obama: “These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals. These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.” – Fourth of July Statement, 2009
Obama is a perfect maestro for keeping people from dealing directly with the global mix of crises. Above all, we should regard Obama as personifying the hierarchy which is seldom questioned. The hierarchy certainly sets the tone at all possible times. Obama is the current “one,” and everyone else is many, but because of laws and convention he is given the right to be master and Pied Piper for a time. Then, in 2012, and only then, he can be re-elected or replaced by a Republicrat or Demopublican. Who the next president might be is NOT the conversation that needs to take place.

The fact that the US can feel it has cleansed itself of racism by electing Obama is a perfect distraction from more serious issues of extinction. For if we consume enough plastic, are exposed to enough radiation, and cling to a lifestyle divorced from nature and health, our species can indeed go extinct — even without the extinction of the Earth's climate as we know it. Our best hope to avoid waiting for the worst may well be collapse of the economic system. This may usher in a sustainable culture. Maybe people will talk about it and take action in anticipation.