hopelesshappiness.com

Another lesson learned from the Arbery trial: to find common ground from which to seek justice, once an individual is identified as a racist one should avoid allusions to race and/or racism. The same is true of any group of individuals in which a majority are identified as racist. Many racists retain a sense of justice and are capable of understanding an injustice that harms another individual, and a non-racist will not only understand the injustice but will also recognize the racism without having to have it put on display. But if I try to attribute the motivation for unjust or even simply unfair actions or behavior to racism, a racist or a group of racists will instinctively become defensive and search for justifications thus (at the very least) mitigating the potential for justice. On the other hand, by simply presenting the injustice as an injustice, I am more likely to capture empathy and understanding from everyone and avoid divisiveness stemming from anger and entrenched, often instinctive reaction, thus increasing the potential for justice.

That said, I believe that to advance and even save humanity, once an individual is identified as a rational forward-thinking citizen (or likewise a citizen-group) one should speak the truth (often and loudly), and act on the truth in order to advance the truth working to attain a vocal majority and encouraging the like-minded to do the same. I believe we are at a point where respect and courtesy should be reserved only for specific circumstance, (such as a court of law), and should manifest as rational argument serving to advance humanity by avoiding anger and instinctive reaction. I believe we are at a point where we no longer have the luxury of wasted effort toward rhetoric. I believe we are at a point where we must take back our original intent (accidental or not) as it is expressed in our constitution: to promote and protect liberty for all individuals. And perhaps most importantly, I believe that “all” must include not only the 7,910,862,621 individuals here in this moment, but also (for the traditionalist) every individual who has ever lived and (for the progressive) future generations. If we do not move past our current state of divisive ignorance, quickly, and take back the reins to move ahead as a rational forward-thinking liberal democracy that will promote and protect individual liberty, we risk the nonexistence and/or inconsequentiality of ourselves and all past and future generations.

I believe a very large majority of those who identify as traditionalists hearken back to the good old days of no more than two or three generations ago. Yet if God is a traditionalist, I believe today that they, (all 7,910,863,059 versions of her, him, it), would hearken back to the good old days before humans. If God were a traditionalist, she would have never created man! So now that we have definitively determined that God is a progressive, shouldn't we follow suit?

I believe this is the crux of the issue. Whether we are talking about a racist or a climate naysayer or a rich white man, we are talking about a division between traditionalists and progressives. And we have shown that the entire structure of traditionalist thought is at best confused and more realistically at worst a gauzy, feeble, rickety sham. But just as with the racist, once an individual is identified as a traditionalist, one should avoid allusions to their smoke and mirrors and instead appeal to their sense of responsibility. Many traditionalists do feel a responsibility to their ancestors and to their own personal legacy and many traditionalists do understand the need for change, but many traditionalists are unwilling and/or unable to move past wishful thinking fueled by misremembering and/or ego and/or fear to act in accordance with the consensus science, fact, truth. Yet still, to appeal to their sense of responsibility is a better plan than to try and knock over their house of cards that even the most inexperienced of traditionalists can rebuild in a moment.

From overt racism to the planet to capitalism to the growing wealth gap to this country's ridiculous two-party political structure to opportunity to housing to education to implicit bias to the American dream that in our hands, for a majority of us today, has turned into a watery, unsatisfying mishmash of dashed hopes fed by lies, we have a lot of work to do. Rhetoric is not work. Politicians are not workers.

But just as with the racist (which many politicians also are), and just as with the traditionalist, (which I believe most politicians are regardless of party affiliation, and I believe all politicians are at least to some degree), one should avoid allusions to our leaders’ progressive impotence. And though an appeal to their sense of responsibility may result in some progress, we will find that a politician's ego is a much bigger mountain to climb and any progress is likely to be only baby steps. Regardless, today, it is still a better plan (at least with those politicians who acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth), to appeal to the sense of responsibility they feel, be that sense of responsibility toward their personal legacy, their ancestors, or their current and future constituents. And (though still only a baby step), it is our responsibility to send a strong message to any politician who refuses to acknowledge consensus science, fact, truth by voting them out of office.

That said, I am always concerned that too late has entered unnoticed through a side entrance.

And that said, this week I am also somewhat encouraged. There are others (scientists and experts) who do have a plan. This week I finished David Attenborough’s book, A Life on Our Planet. Near the end he said,

“In losing our dependence on coal and oil and by generating renewable energy we gain clean air and water, cheap electricity for all, and quieter, safer cities. In losing rights to fish in certain waters, we gain a healthy ocean that will help us combat climate change and ultimately offer us more wild seafood. In removing much of the meat from our diet, we gain fitness and health and less expensive food. In losing land to the wild, we gain opportunities for a life-affirming reconnection with the natural world both in distant lands and seas and in our own local environment. In losing our dominance over nature, we gain an enduring stability within it for all the generations that will follow.” And for the traditionalist, for all the generations that have come before us.

And somewhere in the middle, Sir Attenborough said,

“A recent review has estimated that almost 50 per cent of humanity’s impact on the living world is attributable to the richest 16 per cent of the human population. The lifestyle that the wealthiest of us have become used to on Earth is wholly unsustainable. As we plot a path to a sustainable future, we will have to address this issue. We must learn not only to live within the Earth’s finite resources, but also how to share them more evenly too. [There are] minimum requirements of human well-being: good housing, healthcare, clean water, safe food, access to energy, good education, an income, a political voice and justice. [This] is a social foundation that we must aim to raise everyone above to enable a fair and just world.”

Consensus science, fact, truth.

This is a rant.

Wisconsin State Representative David Bowen regarding Rittenhouse and Arbery trials said, “In both cases, you have white individuals who feel they have to make it their duty to go out of their way to reprimand or correct black people and do so in a lethal and aggressive way.” Rittenhouse was a white man with a gun (not even in his home state) portrayed as enforcing the law. Rittenhouse victims were liberals standing up for democracy and the rights of everyone. Arbery was an unarmed black man portrayed as a criminal because he was seen exploring a house under construction. Video shows multiple individuals exploring said house; nothing was vandalized or stolen. Arbery’s armed attackers chased him in pickup trucks yet they are also portrayed as enforcing the law and acting in self-defense. In 2013 George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, killed him and was acquitted also based on a claim of self-defense. I could go on with many more examples. By definition a racist is an individual afraid of a black man; and because of this impetuous, unsubstantiated fear a racist can come across as truthful and sincere in a court of law and be exonerated. When will we hold racists responsible for their actions leading up to the heat of the moment? Rittenhouse did not have to go to Wisconsin. Arbery’s attackers did not have to chase Arbery in their pickup trucks. Zimmerman did not have to follow Trayvon Martin. Our police do not have to find reasons for proportionately inordinate traffic stops of black men. We are a racist nation; there is no excuse. We can be better and we have been better and other nations and cultures are better. I have said before “The insanity of the either/or choice we are given forces us to choose between a delusion of control and ineffectual rhetoric; neither of which will lead us to progress or even survival.” Our justice system perfectly illustrates this political dichotomy by acting on the side of a delusion of control while at the same time spouting ineffectual rhetoric. Our laws have been made and molded by white men for white men and until we understand the meaning of democracy and justice and act accordingly, we will continue to fail.

If I get behind the wheel of a car and I am drunk, and I kill somebody, I am guilty. If I get behind the trigger of a gun and I am racist, and I kill somebody, I am a hero. When I am drunk my judgement is impaired and I am responsible. When I am racist my judgement is impaired and I am not responsible, I am legitimately acting in self-defense. There is a disconnect. Poor judgement is poor judgement. And just because we don't have a breathalyzer for racism should not excuse the stupidity of someone who makes the conscious decision to insert their self into a racially-charged volatile circumstance. I have known many racists who have not taken their AR-15 across state lines in search of notorious infamy, but as long as we continue to glorify such behavior, some of these racists who might otherwise use better judgement will more likely be moved to become that shining example. Perhaps this is the racism breathalyzer: if you agree that drunk drivers who kill should be punished and you are happy about the Rittenhouse verdict, then you are blowing between 0.15 and 0.25, which according to a duke.edu blood-alcohol-content chart may create mood swings, mania, anger and aggression; (many of the “Changes in Feelings and Personality” caused by alcohol in various ranges up and down this chart interestingly are as applicable to changes caused by racist thought). I believe Rittenhouse and Arbery’s killers would blow 0.21 to 0.30 on a racism breathalyzer and I believe they secretly aspire to a 0.41 and beyond.

Today (Wednesday) Arbery’s killers were convicted of murder. Sadly this does not change the fact that as a nation we are still deeply divided about this ongoing exercise in justice, both when it succeeds and when it fails. We are divided because we are racist.

• If you are unhappy about the Arbery verdict, yet the thought of three armed black men chasing down and killing an unarmed white man angers you, you are a racist.
• If you believe the disproportionate police traffic stops on black men are justified, you are racist.
• If you believe the disproportionate black population in our overcrowded prisons is justified, you are racist.
• If you don’t want to hear facts regarding policing bias or overpopulated prisons or the war on drugs or zoning restrictions, redlining and restrictive covenants or disproportionate rates of eviction or disproportionate opportunities for jobs, education, homeownership… …if you don’t want to hear these facts, you are racist.
• And again, if you agree that drunk drivers who kill should be punished and you are happy about the Rittenhouse verdict, you are racist. And you are the problem…

Autocracy: government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority.

Democracy: government in which the supreme power is vested in the people.

In this moment, we live in a world of 7,907,527,888 autocrats; each individual believing they have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over their self and many believing they have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others. Capitalism has driven us to this edge of insanity in which even those of us who proclaim an affinity with democratic principles must do so from an active position of autocratic fervor that serves to strengthen and perpetuate the status quo. An autocracy is me working to help me. A democracy is me working for and with others to help everyone. In this power-driven system of capitalism, as the other side of the wealth gap continues to fade from sight, I am so busy surviving the moment, autocratically, that I have no choice but to relegate my affinity with democracy to the rhetoric of my soapbox. It is no wonder that, in this century, democracy has taken a back seat to the impunity of corrupt autocrats not only the world over but also in these (so-called) United States.

In this world today, anything that impedes democracy serves autocracy. This makes divisiveness and diplomacy tools of autocracy. In this country where apparently we the people are too stupid to choose beyond either/or, we can either choose the republicans who are divisive and openly serve autocracy or the democrats who are divisive and diplomatic and whose rhetorical democracy serves to subvert actual liberal democracy thus also serving autocracy. Consider any level of government or any arena of politics (i.e. anywhere there is a struggle for power) including the workplace, civic and social organizations, transactional dynamics, family dynamics, and even the decision-making process within one's self, and you will find an autocracy at work because one perspective is nearly always working to maintain self-serving status quo. And because tradition or the old guard is typically where the power resides and/or because no change often seems easier (and often is easier) than change, more often than not autocracy wins. When I couple this understanding of our resistance to change with an understanding of our urgent need to change I find the impetus for change. Autocrats, (all 7,908,057,226 of us), driven by capitalism, see resistance to change as a good thing especially when we are in-the-moment comfortable and even more so when we perceive our self as having some power. And I have said before that “I believe our deification of capitalism has spread and entrenched this belief in power by creating layers and pockets and far too many small ponds from which almost anyone can exude ego.”. I can't say it enough: we are all autocrats.

Obviously, autocracy is not compatible with democracy. Which means that the force, capitalism, driving us to autocracy is also not compatible with democracy. I don’t believe democracy and capitalism have ever been compatible, but they were at least on friendly terms until, in the last 40 to 50 years, an explosion of technology and population combined to revitalize and exponentially strengthen their incompatibility. Today I cannot have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over myself and act for democracy. To sincerely claim an affinity with democratic principles I must give some of myself over to the will of the people and the will of consensus science and the will of consensus fact; all the people and all the consensus science and all the consensus fact. A democracy is not a democracy when it only serves specific factions or groups, even when those groups are the majority and/or hold the majority power/wealth. The idiocy of the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial this week perfectly illustrates the autocratic favoritism (in custom, culture and law) afforded certain groups. The stupidity of allowing unsubstantiated claims of personal belief or religion to make a political statement that endangers lives perfectly illustrates the diplomatic lunacy helping to maintain status quo. The insanity of the either/or choice we are given forces us to choose between a delusion of control and ineffectual rhetoric; neither of which will lead us to progress or even survival. We live in a world, (and more specifically a nation, and most specifically I live in a state), in which autocrats with more power manipulate autocrats with less power by taking advantage of their ignorance and fear. For years I have voiced a confidence, an active hope, in the intelligence and wherewithal of upcoming generations to save the world. In recent months I have said more than once that I have never been more disillusioned by, more demoralized by, or more concerned with the continued lack of progress toward saving Humanity. And more than once I have asked the question: Is too late already here?

Finally, looking back at the definition of autocracy, (uncontrolled or unlimited authority), implying total control in the hands of an individual, this explains the more open, obvious compatibility of republicans and autocracy. Republicans openly serve autocracy by dividing groups into smaller factions that more easily provide an illusion or a delusion of control. Democrats on the other hand use words like inclusion and universal and we that not only infer a lack of control but also contribute to the divisiveness encouraged by republicans by reminding individuals of their fear of change and their desire for control. And (finally, finally) if the smaller the group the greater the likelihood of perceived control, then the individual, (as the smallest possible group), is most prone to (driven by capitalism) the siren song of autocracy.

Is too late already here?

In an ancient land, long, long ago, yesterday and tomorrow, there lived no-one and everyone, and everything and nothing. Time was a cat's tail swishing back and forth, attached to claws and teeth, ready to pounce. And place was everywhere. No matter where you went, place was in its place, accordingly. Now the people of this time and that place and that place and that place and that place and that place and nearly every place and virtually no place between that place and that place, well the people, they were lost. They wandered unaimlessly in circles, in search of magic that was there but so well-hidden that it was mistaken for a common, ordinary, unexceptional, everyday, mundane contrivance. A magic that was real and a trick that was life amongst a people simultaneously everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and there. And amongst this multitudinous crowded sparsity there lived a man; really just a boy, but a very, very old boy. This boy was just born yesterday but had lived tomorrow and never, and planned to live again and again and again, momentarily forever. But first, he had to find the magic. He had heard a rumor that it was there, within reach, but when he went there, it was nowhere to be seen. So, he searched elsewhere. And he sought out self-proclaimed mystics and witches and conjurers and soothsayers, and he asked all the right questions but heard only the drumbeat and the clang of the cymbal. He did not hear the windblown whispers; he did not feel the weight of the way; he did not smell the popcorn clouds; he did not taste the marshmallow breeze; and he did not see the swishing cat's tail, ready to pounce. But still he persisted.

One day, that was not this day or that day but another day, this man that was a boy flickered. He was there and he was not there and though he was not in the in-between, while he was in the in-between he saw another flicker that was there and not there. And as he passed through this place he'd never been, this place that never was, hoping to see the magic in the flicker, he heard a screech. And he looked down to discover he had stepped on the cat's tail. Well of course, time stopped. And with no time, the boy stopped; in the in-between, that was not there and never was. Unable to lift his foot from the cat's tail, (and because the claws and teeth were frozen mid-pounce, not sure he wanted to), the boy did what any one of us would do in the same circumstance – nothing. After doing nothing, (which I am obliged to point out is a contradiction), for a momentary eternity, the boy began to think. His first think-thought was that perhaps this was the magic he sought. But then he think-thought again and thought perhaps this is the trick, which he understood how a trick could be confused with magic so on his third-think-thought he determined that real magic is not a trick; and with all his strength and even more of his frailty the boy was able to lift his big toe and his little toe just enough to release the cat's tail allowing her to complete her pounce which bloodied the boy's foot and ankle and released him from the in-between that was not there and never was. As he stumbled back into his place and began again circling unaimlessly he discovered he was able (with great effort and mindless ease) to turn down the volume on the drumbeat and cymbal, and he found he was able to almost not hear whispers on the wind. And he detected a faint whiff of popcorn and tasted a tiny tongue-touch of marshmallow. And he felt an urge, a pull, a call to move counterclockwise, or to stop and call out in silence. And he knew there were some in the past-future moments to be who had actually left their unaimless circling in place accordingly to never be heard from again; though their leaving, their example, their voices, their shadows lingered, if not in the circle, at least now in this boy's think-thought.

Weeks and months and years later on the very next day this boy stopped and called out in silence and began moving counterclockwise. But no one noticed. The boy did not want to hurt anyone so he threw the apples and walnuts and pig entrails at the feet of the circling mass. But no one noticed. He looked outside the circle and repeatedly for the very first time saw all kinds of nuggety debris and offal and sparkly trinkets being tossed about; some being thrown at the throng; some aimed at their heads. But no one noticed. This boy had a choice. He could keep circling and occasionally stop or move against the grain or call out in silence and not be noticed. Or he could leave the circle and be apart and move around at will and toss things about and not be noticed. Or he could find that damn cat and stand on its tail and not notice and not be noticed.

But what about the magic? When he flickered before, he was looking for the magic, so he associated the flicker with the magic. And though he frequently and never forgot about the flicker and the magic, he always and never stopped looking for it. Years and days and moments passed backward and forward, and as time went swishing by, this very, very old boy became a very, very, very old boy full of emptiness and think-thought. Late in his new-old life this boy chose a magic that was mostly, almost all but not really a trick. And he was glad he had waited to choose a magic. And he was glad he had experienced counterclockwise. And he was glad he had smelled a little popcorn and tasted a little marshmallow. And he was glad he had flickered. Though he was sorry he had not spent more time tossing things about outside the circle. And he was sorry he had not been able to see the cat as more than a swishing tail attached to teeth and claws. And he was sorry he had not been able to pet the cat and hear the cat purr. But most of all and not at all he was glad and sorry to be sorry and glad.

One day that was not today and probably not tomorrow but more likely yesterday this very, very, very old boy considered never calling out in silence again. This very, very, very old boy considered merely spending the remaining days of his past circling in his place accordingly. In the very moment he had this think-thought, years later, someone noticed. And the boy flickered. And the cat purred and rubbed against his legs. So even though this very, very, very old boy was both positive and uncertain that this was just another trick, still he stopped and began moving counterclockwise. And no one noticed. Regardless, this very, very, very old boy lived out his remaining days, calling out in silence, again and again and again, momentarily forever.

Then one day that was not today and probably not tomorrow but more likely there not then, this man, this very, very, very old boy, left the circle never to be heard from again; though his leaving, his example, his voice, his shadow, lingers…

As long as we require diplomacy and tact, science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy will continue to be thwarted by religion and feelings and belief and politicians and tradition and power. And survival will be trumped by blunder-headed noise. By respectfully standing by and continuing to give in to compromise, the door remains open for too late. I am (and we all should be) sad and angry and afraid. I am also (meaning we all are) unseen, unheard, inconsequential.

I ended last week's written thought with the words above, and I would like to continue. I would like to begin by exploring the sham that is political correctness and its relationship to power.

There is a deep rift in this country. Last week I characterized the basic argument as Science vs. Religion, or Facts vs. Feelings, or Logic vs. Belief, or Experts vs. Politicians, or Progress vs. Tradition, or Empathy vs. Power, or Survival vs. Extinction, and said it is essentially the same argument. As I have thought about this I have come to see that if those who purport to be on the side of science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy and survival are also in a position of power, instead of action we get diplomacy and tact and compromise and delay and verbal gymnastics. I believe this to be purposeful. To begin, there is a difference between political correctness and respect. Political correctness perpetuates power. Respect encourages empathy. Political correctness is a device. Power (fueled by judgment) is the goal. Respect is recognition. Empathy is understanding. It is very difficult for someone with power to separate their self from that dynamic in order to truly recognize and understand, so they fall back on a brittle framework of seemingly progressive, inoffensive mandates and directives that serve to disarm and distract and do not address the root problem which is the ever-widening wealth gap. And as long as we are driven by capitalism and as long as our decision-makers (those in power) continue to come from the top 20%, they will continue to make decisions (or not make decisions) that will maintain the status quo. I believe they understand that any action that would make things better for the bottom 80% would undermine their power and would make things worse for them; (even though their worse would continue to be much better than our better). And I believe I do understand how this has come about. It is our nature to seek meaning and purpose and I believe throughout our history there have been those who equate power with meaning and purpose. I believe our deification of capitalism has spread and entrenched this belief in power by creating layers and pockets and far too many small ponds from which almost anyone can exude ego. But if we consider and work to understand the Survival side of the argument, (Science and Facts and Logic and Experts and Progress and Empathy), it becomes obvious that power indeed corrupts, pulling our decision makers (consciously or otherwise) to a different path; a path that will take us to a place I have previously characterized as follows:

As a species we have seen 200,000 years. Our civilization (marked by the advent of agriculture) has seen 10,000 years. From fossil records we know that a typical mammalian species can expect to survive about 1,000,000 years, and across all species average survival ranges between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 years. As a species, in many ways we are atypical. Yet (literally) looking across time, in many other ways we are typical. So why have we acted in accordance with our atypicality as applied to the individual? Why have we forgotten, lost sight of, our commonness both individually across our species and as a species across all species? Unless we remember, and act in accordance with our humble origin and our eventual unremarkable end, our atypicality will manifest as a short-lived mammalian species. Our legacy though will last ten million years as the amount of time it will take Earth to heal itself after the damage we have inflicted.

I have also said that if a coalition of Universal Intelligence (or all of Nature) could speak, it would say the following:

Sapiens. Humanity believes itself to be superior and indestructible, yet they continue to indiscriminately harm multiple habitats and destroy multiple species. We understand that the instinct for survival creates a façade of superiority but Humans have aggrandized this façade into a belief they treat as fact. Diversity is a valuable resource but due to their own willful acts of wanton negligence Humanity is fast becoming expendable as a species. Intervention is necessary for the long-term preservation of Earth. This is harsh; and it is hard. We have a great respect for all species and all habitats. Yet the fact that so many Humans walk apart and feel detached from other species, when they should walk alongside and feel connected to other species, lessens our respect. To sacrifice one species for the sake of multiple species and multiple habitats is a choice we must make. Sapiens. Unfortunately for them, they are not our equals.

In another place, I differentiated market value, civic value, moral value and survival value and, as the first three relate to our current reliance on capitalism, I said the following:

Political discussion in recent years has retreated from a substantial, meaningful debate on civic and moral virtue to an entrenched academic exercise calculating market values. Going as far back as Confucius and Plato and as recently as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr, moral and civic virtue was a consideration; part of the equation. What has happened in the past 40 years? These three values (market, civic, moral) encapsulate systems of political thought and action over the last twenty-five or so centuries. It may be an oversimplification but I believe our recent decline is a result of our increasing capacity for learning that has enabled rapid technological progress and at the same time stymied our ability to think. We are so busy creating, we have left no time to consider potential outcomes or repercussions. We have grown smart faster than we have grown wise. So we have fallen back on this system of Market Value because it appeals to our current level of acuity and does not require the thoughtful, careful depth of consideration necessary for inclusion of Civic Value and/or Moral Value. And to further complicate matters, this capacity-wisdom gap has created a need for the fourth value; survival.

There are international climate talks in Glasgow this week. China and Russia did not show up. We (the United States) showed up. Our president promised to “lead by the power of our example.” Our example? Between 2016 and 2020 we did not show up. Our president at the time was promising to burn more (not less) gas, oil and coal. Today we have a single senator from West Virginia (in theory on the side of Survival) working very hard for team extinction. And there are stronger and stronger rumblings that our last president will be our next president. This is our example; diplomacy and tact and compromise and delay and verbal gymnastics.

There is a deep rift in this country.

There is an urgency that demands unified action today.

We do not appear to be capable.

Effort spent on diplomacy and tact is effort taken away from survival.

United States is a misnomer.

The top 20% will one day find they are unable to take their wealth and power with them, and if (as many proclaim) they do find they are able to travel from this life to a next life, I believe they will also find, regarding their wealth, they would have been better served by science and facts and logic and experts and progress and empathy.