Redirection

Now playing...

www.thetrigger.net

Biotechnology as the Way to Feed a Starving World

"One of the problems that the biotechnology industry has is that it's done nothing for the American consumer. There's nothing there. There's no genetically engineered food that does anything... no nutrition, nothing for us. So how are they going to sell this technology to the American people? Well, they've come up with this idea that maybe biotechnology should be sold as the way to feed a starving world.

"One major problem with that, the reason why roughly 800 million people starve every day - and that is a tragic fact - has nothing to do with the amount of food available. Most of these people around the world who are starving used to be farmers. But because of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund giving huge loans to these countries, these countries can no longer allow for subsisted farming. They had to grow expensive export crops back to the first world to pay back those loans. So they kicked these hundreds of millions of farmers off their farms, they end up in the Bopauls and the Mexico Cities and the Brazilias of the world. Without money. They are no longer growing their own food. And they're competing for the scarce jobs available in the new industrialization of these countries. They are no longer food independent, they're food dependent."

- Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director, Center for Food Safety

Transcribed from The Future of Food.

A Brief History of the Human Animal's Diet

In the beginning, the human animal was hungry. It ate plants that provided all the nutrients for its survival. Then the human animal began to keep other animals for their entire lives, born into slavery for their savoury skin. The other animals ate the plants and the human animal got whatever nutrients remained after they had been digested and processed. Disease followed in the animal's captivity, so the human animal devised medicines to cure the diseases. But the cures were imperfect. Eating other animals made the human animal unhealthy. Its blood was thicker, its body slow and cumbersome. So it devised other medicines, like adding tubes and displacing organs and connecting mechanical parts. And these cures too were imperfect, so the human animal lumbered on, searching for new ways to fix the problem it created for itself. An endless effort to artificially attain the nutrients for survival.

Some of the human animals suggested that they eat the plants instead. But of course, that's silly. We're much too accustomed to doing things the difficult way.

The Song is Life

The beliefs of omnivores have been so carefully constructed that despite how obvious its flaws, we do not question them. In elementary school, you learn about the four required food groups. You learn that protein comes from the muscle tissue of animals, but for one reason or another, they don't mention broccoli, or bananas, or beans. We are taught not to inflict pain on other living creatures, and so we don't. We let anyone else do it for us. And so there is a disassociation between the product and the cruelty. A child that tortures a dog is sent to therapy, as would be a child that tortures a cow. But if we move that cow into a factory it becomes a product, and despite there being no difference in suffering, we do not question that this conflict arises. If we did, we might wonder why we value certain living animals more than others. We might see the extent of our selective compassion for life.

We are guided to believe that because we think, we are entitled to the planet and everything on it. We are not. Because we think, we experience more of the world around us, but it is not ours. We did not come to this world, we came from it.

All matter in existence is made up of the same atoms arranged differently. Some of those atoms form cells, and some cells form living creatures, and within those creatures, some cells form a complex system of nerves that feel a sensation known as pain. Human beings are not the only ones with this system. The pain we feel is exactly the same as the pain any living creature feels. It has been guided into our mentality that we do not acknowledge this, or that if we do, we are not affected by it. When a person consumes an animal, they know that it has died. They know this, but they do not understand it because they are detached from the physical act of killing. They do not hear the animal crying out as its life is taken for reasons beyond its comprehension. For reasons beyond our needs.

We claim ourselves civil but that does not explain the horror that we either perform or ignore when we consume animals. We claim ourselves rational, but that does not explain why we maintain a system that we cannot justify; not ethically, not economically, and not nutritionally. Man is the only animal on the planet that must cook muscle tissue in order to safely consume it, yet it is engrained into us to overlook this and insist that it is natural. It is not. The natural consumption of animals leaves our bodies weakened and sick. Early man did not hunt and cook animals because it wanted to. Preference was not the objective; it was to survive. And we are not early man. We have communities, and gardens, and technology. We have changed our habits but our objective is still the same. To survive.

To believe that animal consumption is necessary is to ignore all reasoning proving otherwise. To believe that our personal tastes justify the inconceivable pain inflicted on living animals is barbaric. To believe that animals give us their lives without resistance, without fighting with every last bit of strength they have, is naive. And to know all of this and not be affected by it is a tragedy.

Our detachment from the action of taking a life gives us complete ambivalence towards it. Animals that we consume were once breathing, just like us; they were feeling, just like us; and they bled, just like us. What separates us is the extent of our choices and to feel the sensation of joy or guilt that comes from those consequences.

The longer a person remains of a belief - no matter how questionable - the harder it is for them to analyze this belief objectively. I have found that nearly all omnivores are resistant to the information that I present in my arguments towards vegetarianism. It is important to understand where that resistance comes from. Carl Jung said that people will do anything but examine their self. If your mind is closed, then no matter how compelling the evidence is, you cannot evaluate it without bias. All communication is wasted. I do not blame anyone for their consumption of animals, but I do blame them if they have not questioned it. Anyone can question anything at any time; we are all entitled that freedom of thought. And if you have questioned it but not changed your mind, you have not considered it enough. You have heard a section of the orchestra but not the entire song. And the song is beautiful, the song is life.

The Trivial and the Banal

An excerpt from the third chapter of I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges.

James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, spoke of the "old triumvirate of tyrants in the human soul, the libido sciendi, the libido sentiendi, and the libido dominandi" [The lust of the mind, the lust of the flesh and the lust for power]. Adams, who worked with the anti-Nazi church leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1935 and 1936 in Germany, warned us that these lusts are universal and intractable. They lurk beneath the surface of the most refined cultures and civilizations. "We may call these tendencies by any name we wish," he said, "but we do not escape their destructive influence by a conspiracy of silence concerning them."

The belief that science or religion can eradicate these lusts leads to the worship of human potential and human power. These lusts are woven into our genetic map. We can ameliorate them, but they are always with us; we will never ultimately defeat them. The attempt to deny the lusts within us empowers this triumvirate. They surface, unexamined and unheeded, to commit evil in the name of good. We are not saved by reason. We are not saved by religion. We are saved by turning away from projects that tempt us to become God, and by accepting our own contamination and the limitations of being human.

The belief in moral advancement implicitly calls on us to ignore the common good and place our faith in the empowerment of the state. It teaches that everything should be dedicated to private gain. The corporate state – the engine, we are assured, of our great moral progress - instructs us on how to view the world. Corporatism is about placing our faith in unchecked corporate advancement, as well as in the neutral disciplines of science and technology. The effect on the individual in the emergent corporate state is a kind of numbing acceptance of our political, economic and social disempowerment. We give over our rights as citizens because we are taught to believe these forces will lead us to utopia. There is, as John Ralston Saul wrote, a passivity and conformity "in those areas which matter and nonconformism in those which don't." We view the status quo as an unadulterated good. We are assured it is leading us to a wonderful and glorious future. We do not question. We are left to seek our individuality and our identity in the trivial and the banal.

Q: Worst President?

A friend of mine had the following thing on his profile:
Who do you think is the worst president of the past 3 decades?

Of the possible answers of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, he chose George W.

That's the stock answer that people give that makes them feel better. Bad things really happened under his lead, it's the most recent major tragedy so it sticks with us. So yes, he did a lot of bad things, but these were superficial and obvious.

I replied to his Posted Thing:

Michael Lagace at 12:44am July 5
Sure, but let's be real about it. Clinton set up the possibility for Bush Jr to fail. George went extreme, but as far as Democrats go, Billy wasn't a good one. He was just a little better than the Republicans. He started the insurance de-regulations. He was fiscally conservative, which is the problem that the U.S. faces now. So yeah, I'd give George W. Bush a failing grade, but Clinton would barely pass too. And what would I give Obama? Maybe a C, probably a C-. It's relatively early, but he hasn't executed at all since he took throne. Dude just talks tough. So did Dubya. A two-party system isn't a choice when they're both supported by the same corporate interests.

The Vegetarian Option

Any restaurant owner that doesn't have at least one vegetarian entrée on their menu does not know how to run a restaurant. It's happened three times in the past months that I've left a restaurant because of this. Three different salads just don't cut it; neither does having a main dish with a vegetarian option, which is basically leave out the meat and replace it with nothing. Vegetarianism isn't a passing fancy; it's a movement that is gaining popularity. And a business that doesn't take this into consideration is out of touch with reality.

Direct and Indirect Consequences

From thetrigger.net/2009/06/direct-and-indirect-consequences/

There are direct and indirect consequences to actions. One can perform a well-intentioned action and still have an indirect negative consequence, just as one can do something bad and indirectly do something good. We are not always, if ever, aware of indirect consequences because we are not actively looking for them; indeed, sometimes they can't be seen unless pointed out. At these times it is easy to deny that we had any part in an indirect negative consequence, especially when we had good intentions. However, the success of our action is not determined by our intention, it is determined by the sum of its consequences.

For example, when the United States initially invaded Iraq, if you discount the more plausible explanation of middle east oil control and take the official statement at face value, their intentions were good. Liberate a nation where, as far as the United States could see, the citizens were oppressed, and help set up a form of government that would benefit them. Although narcissistically flawed, this could still be seen as a noble action. But if we look at the indirect consequences, we see that the Iraq war was an immense failure based on American casualties, Iraqi casualties, and other criteria. Iraq is no more liberated now than it was before the invasion began.

Another example of this relates to money. It is abundantly clear that economy is the dominating force of the majority of the world, and it is the developed nations that control the base of this economic system. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are the three main controls over the global economy. Their actions and policies impact every nation in the world - again, either directly or indirectly - and as I stated before, they may not even be aware of the negative consequences to these actions. The IMF will frequently give loans to undeveloped nations in order to stimulate economic growth; however, these loans contain stipulations that leave the country in a worse condition than it was beforehand, like Thailand and Indonesia during the Asian Crisis of 1997.

Speaking in absolute generality, people want to be good. Our beliefs and actions are easily justified this way. Even those people that are fully aware they are doing something wrong do so because it makes them feel good. When we think along these lines, we ignore anything bad that might happen because of what we've done. This is why it's impossible to objectively evaluate the sum of our actions as good or bad. To be axiomatic, when you feed the wildlife, they forget how to forage; so, whereas it may make you feel good, you've done nothing of the sort. Keep that in mind the next time you're going to invade a country or extend a ridiculously inflated loan to an impoverished country.

Effective Advocacy

From the liner notes of Propagandhi's Supporting Caste.

Effective Advocacy 101 by Jesus H. Chris

Everyone knows that the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people. This rule is especially important in terms of advocating on behalf of animals, mostly due to the fact that meat-eaters tend to cry and whine like a bunch of fuckin’ shitty babies when you pull down the diapers of their revolting lifestyle. Haha, just kidding. Calm down babies.

No, for example though, you wouldn’t want to use terms like “moronic”, “self-absorbed”, “chickenshit” or “disgusting slob” when describing self-professed “radicals” who insist on killing defenseless animals for food while a perfectly good supply of pimps, stockbrokers, crooked cops, politicians and Habs fans–among other sociopathic sources of protein–range freely throughout our communities on a daily basis. No, you wouldn’t want to say something like that. That would be considered counter-productive.

You also wouldn’t want to walk up and down the back lanes of your Kentucky Fried City slicing the throats of your neighbors’ pets only to dismiss the community’s subsequent outrage as “childish sentimentality”, “infantile anthropomorphism” or “cultural imperialism”. That would be considered anti-social.

And you really, really, really, reeeaaaallllly wouldn’t want to set fire to a slaughterhouse or a fur store or a whaling-vessel or an under-construction hog-barn because ... well, I can’t actually think of a good reason why you shouldn’t do that (besides life in prison). But you get the point. It’s all about effective advocacy.

So here I am! At your service! Ready and willing to ensure that people who already know better aren’t made to feel guilty about their stupid, selfish, unimaginably cruel choices! Besides, haven’t you heard? Vegetarians are classist! At least that’s what all the white college kids are saying when they fly home for Thanksgiving dinner! Haha, asswipes. You’ll be the first ones I eat when I finally snap, you fuckin posers. Whoops! Where was I? Oh yeah, effective advocacy...

But seriously folks, every social movement has its peanut gallery. In fact, I believe every serious social movement needs its peanut gallery, and when it comes to the movement against the egomaniacal cruelty humans perpetually visit upon animals, you can sign me up for season tickets and a very big fuckin’ bag of the blessed arachis hypogaea to go along with my top-hat and monocle.

And while it may be true that I take great pleasure in ridiculing morons rad dudes who eat animal corpses and their reproductive secretions, it’s important for me to be clear that veganism isn’t about purity or superiority. It’s simply about extending moral consideration to other inhabitants of a complex planet in a morally-ambivalent universe where, despite the statistical improbability of it all, we earthlings (human and non-human) appear to be the only instance of sentient life that is or ever has been.

That’s some heavy shit.

And seriously, if we as a society can’t even bother to treat a simple, unassuming, stunningly gentle and demonstrably sentient creature like a cow or a deer with a modicum of decency, how the fuck do we ever expect to be able treat each other–infinitely more complex, wildly divergent and often exasperating individual human beings–with anything even remotely resembling civility? It just ain’t gonna happen.

So with that in mind, and in the spirit of the first rule of effective advocacy, I leave you with this short list of potentially transformative resources, created by better and more effective advocates for animals than myself. And see? I didn’t even have to insult you to make my point after all. Fuck are you ugly.

Read:
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat by Howard Lyman
Dominion : The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully

Watch:
Earthlings (AUTHOR'S ADVISORY NOTICE! EXTREMELY DISTURBING)

Listen:
compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm
veganfreakradio.com

Like Society

Have you noticed the word like making its irritating permanence in our vocabulary? It is almost completely synonymous with said. Everybody sounds like a valley girl when they talk. And this bugs the hell out of me.

Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.

In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.

This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.

Money

The culture we know is centered around money. Our labour is exchanged for currency, which is in turn exchanged for food, clothes, and shelter. Since we always need these things, our labour is implied as a condition for living. It is what keeps the economy going. Economy is not necessary for individual survival, nor is it necessary for group survival.

The modern world is phasing out actual currency and replacing it with theoretical currency in digital form. This theoretical money only exists as an idea; the idea of debt. Either you owe the bank or the bank owes you.

Banks have the ability to create money based on our implied present labour and expected future labour. The idea of money, then, is the ultimate control. It guarantees submission for everyone that uses it and control for everyone that creates it.

How we view money and the values that we attribute to it only exist in our mind. If one could detach the idea that we need it to survive from our actual instinct to survive, we would take a great weight off our collective conscience.

Conspiracy Theories

The problem that conspiracy theories have isn't their substance, it's their context. That's what people find ridiculous.

First, you have to agree with a few general statements: human beings have freedom of thought, freedom of action, and instinct to survive. This means that although you don't think a certain way, that although you wouldn't personally do something, you acknowledge that someone else might in order to survive.

Throughout history, there have been trillions of people that have all tried to survive. But the thing is, surviving is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people don't want to have to focus on all of this at once, which is why we so easily submit to control. Since society began, we have gone through transitions of people having less to focus on. The first forms of government made it easier for people to live. They had food, laws, and protection in exchange for taxes and labour. Next came the tools that made our labour easier, and we didn't have to do as much. Last came the process of not thinking, which is achieved through control over what we do think. In this, we lose that which holds our humanity.

Everybody learns from their surroundings. How we are raised is a large part of how we think until we can think for ourselves. Ideologies, knowledge, and culture are all learned before we even begin formal education. These things are so nested into us that something opposing our understanding seems absurd. However, just seeming absurd doesn't make it impossible; something can be possible despite what you know and understand to be true.

What we understand to be true isn't necessarily what actually is true; it is only what we have learned. Since human beings don't know anything that we haven't learned, knowledge is systemic and subjective. It is passed down through culture and education, a mass of whatever is most commonly agreed upon. This means that whatever is repeated most becomes fact. This has direct and indirect consequences, meaning that history can be adjusted through misinformation or exclusion and by accident or intent. It is therefore upon the individual to evaluate what is presented and decide what is logical.

Consider the following rational arguments:
- Wealth exists as expected labour of the population.
- A small group of people control all the world's wealth.
- Those in power don't want to lose power.
- In order to maintain power, some atrocities can be justified.

This is the substance of conspiracy theories. None of these arguments are ridiculous. However, when we give them context, it is based upon what we have learned, which isn't necessarily correct. So when someone denounces a realistic, rational, and plausible argument, fundamentally, it isn't the argument itself that is the problem, it is the person and their perception of it. And perception is - like knowledge - subjective. This doesn't make the argument true inasmuch as it doesn't make it false; listening to the argument and evaluating its logicality for yourself is what defines truth. Question them, research them, and draw your own conclusions. Exercise your freedom of thought.

The following videos should be evaluated with an open mind:
- John Harris: It's An Illusion
- Kymatica
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Why We Fight

Hatred

I went for drinks tonight with a friend that was raised largely in Africa by Israeli parents. We experienced a discussion where I argued that the basis for hatred was a learned behaviour. She argued the counterpoint, that humans are
predicated towards hatred, that it is our instinct to judge based on differences. What struck me most in this contrast of opinion wasn't so much our perspectives, but the background of those perspectives.

My childhood was much more normal than hers; and by normal I note the subjectivity involved in its use and comment more on the shock of abnormality. Through her life, she's seen far more hatred first-hand. She's witnessed pure, ignorant, bare-brained conviction. I have witnessed theoretical, emotional hatred, where she has seen it much more physical and real.

Because my life has been so soft, is that why I have more hopefulness for humanity? Is it naive to think that our systemic disposition towards hatred can be unlearned?

No, it's not naive. I don't think that human beings are wired to hate other human beings of different skin tone. I don't think our genes are nearly that competitive. People aren't that willingly ignorant without encouragement through education and culture. My friend is from the Middle-East, I'm from North America. Culture here is a fusion of everything, so in a sense we don't have our own culture at all. If we do, it's vague, fuzzy. The culture she's used to is specific and focused, where people have much firmer beliefs.

Culture is in no way a genetic predisposition; it is a concept created by man. It is a social consciousness, not an individual one, so it has been learned in one way or another. And if something has been learned, it can be unlearned; and if it can't be unlearned, it can not be instructed.

Love is a more rational human predisposition. Love is lazy; hatred takes legitimate effort. Eventually, people are going to stop wasting so much energy needlessly and we'll finally break out of this second-hand shell of division.

Financial Irony

There is financial irony that I hope isn't lost on the world when it discusses buying our way out of recession.

Money does not exist in the sense that we have come to understand it. An overwhelming majority of it exists theoretically in the banking system. When a loan is taken out, the money is created out of nothing, which lowers the value of actual money in circulation and dilutes the market. Our banking system does not create and lend this theoretical money to be kind; it expects to make a profit through the interest it collects on the loan. So when our problem is debt, how is compounding more debt on top of it a viable solution?

Some people say that spending money stimulates the economy, and it does. But at the end of the day, it does not stop the problem that money creates in the first place.

The recent G20 meeting in London was met with a large and misguided protest. The people there were largely being as revolutionary as the latest trend demanded. One man died in an alley as medics were assaulted trying to get to him. Some chanted, "abolish money" as if that would do anything productive.

Money is not the problem; its unregulated misuse is the problem. People not understanding what this misuse does is the problem. A country's currency should not be in the hands of private industry, it should be in the hands of the country. Government must distance itself in every sense from private industry and regain its control over corporations. Business owners and shareholders must be limited in their salary to a base percentage that is the same for every company. Taxes must be collected as an equal percentage from everyone; not on the products they purchase - certainly not on food - but on their salary. And most of all, we must end this belief that we can buy our way out of recession. Truly, we can only think our way out.

Religion is an Outdated Necessity

In the past, religion served two functions: to explain life and to provide order. Our species has evolved enough to execute these functions with rational means. We can explain the development of our complicated world without simple answers. We have a system of statutes and social expectations that provide peaceful boundaries. Our empirical understanding of the universe has progressed to a level that no longer requires a Creator that must be followed by penalty of damnation.

When considering religion, the dichotomy of doubt and faith emerges. Faith provides useful theoretical benefit. In practice, it offers more meaning in afterlife than in life, which contradicts the instinct to survive. If we exclude the impossibility of an afterlife - especially one as magnificent as Heaven - we become unafraid of death; without this, life becomes devalued. We lose purpose, except to faith itself. Further, when one has an ability to repent their sins, immoral actions become inconsequential. These two factors combined create an environment that can justify war on the basis of faith, especially when faith is twisted from its intention and taken to extremes. In a world where multiple faiths all exist in disharmony, faith allows itself this possibility.

Faith allowed the Romans to conquer Europe. Faith allowed Europeans to commit mass genocide against Native Americans. Faith currently allows the Israeli army to keep Palestine under brutal occupation and faith currently allows the United States to spread its ongoing and unwanted global influence through force. And then faith excuses itself.

In a world where there is so much still unknown, faith remains stationary. It is stubborn to new ideas and savagely enforces old ones. It does not form opinions, its opinions are already formed, and even when conditions change it will already have determined its position. Doubt does the opposite; it says that it does not yet understand, and more importantly, doubt allows for further explanation. Faith is an unproven back-up plan whereas doubt points out the consequences of its failure. And doubt adapts.

Religion is unnatural and must be taught. This is no different than science, except that most science can be proven through repeatable experimentation. (The Big Bang Theory, for example, is a particularly difficult experiment to repeat; however, it is still easier to recreate this than the first few pages of Genesis.) Science is based on empirical data, which is compounded knowledge over thousands of years of observation. Religion, however, is not empirical. It has no evidence, no observation. When presented with this, religious people tend to fall back to it being a matter of faith. But faith cannot survive.

There is an enormous difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a method for living one's life in balance with self, others, and with nature. It is a basis for being good for the sake of goodness, not for fear of eternal punishment. Religion is faith in the certainty of something that is absolutely uncertain. It is a true or false answer to an essay question. I live my life spiritually and believe in what I can see and feel. I do so with the understanding that there is more to this world than I am aware of, more than I could ever perceive. But I do not pretend that I have an answer.

Corporations Are Not Greedy

I've been reading and writing odds and ends and tids and bits about the seven sins, and I've come to the conclusion that - contrary to popular belief - corporations are not greedy.

And now you're thinking to yourself, "but Michael! This goes against everything you've written! Have you lost your mind? Has the machine gotten to you?!" Trust me, good friend, the machine has not gotten to me, and I've as much mind as I've ever had.

Corporations are just simply not greedy. They are gluttonous, which is something far worse.

Greed and gluttony are nearly indistinguishable in definition, as they are both a desire for personal gain. The difference is that gluttony takes it to excess.

For example. Someone who is greedy will eat more cookies than anyone else; someone who is gluttonous will eat all of the cookies on the table, then all the cookies in the cupboards, then all of the cookies in the store, and will not stop until they've eaten every cookie possible.

A corporation that is greedy will demand greater profits than its competitors; a corporation that is gluttonous will do whatever it takes to make those profits, including layoffs and dubious production tactics.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even totally sure where I stand on this whole capitalism issue. While there is logic behind competition creating better products, in a hypothetical communist and technology-driven society, couldn't products be made better for the simple goal of creating better products? Why does capitalism only function on the premise that some people must lose? And greed and gluttony and inflation aside, how can corporations consider only a marginal profit a loss? This mentality is most certainly not for the benefit of society, it can only be a manufacturer's defect.

In conclusion, because I'm not feeling particularly wordy today: up yours, corporate thugs.

As Dug Up from an Old Pile of Ignorance

A few years ago, I received an e-mail. It was forwarded to me probably with the intention of humour, although I seriously question the mental state of someone who would actually think it were funny. Strictly for context purposes, this is a condensation of what it read:

"Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let's see now; no Jesus, no Christmas, no television, no cheerleaders, no hot dogs, no beer, no tailgate parties, no Wal-Mart, rags for clothes, towels for hats, your wives can't shave, you can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung, and women wear baggy dresses and veils and smell like your donkey. Then they tell you that when you die it all gets better! Is there a mystery here?"

I replied immediately, not only to the ignorant twit who sent it to me, but also to everyone else addressed. I was livid; as I imagined any sensible person would be. This is what I wrote:

"The message that was sent to you is a slanderous e-mail containing more outright racism than humour. Please do not propogate hatred by forwarding it. The very first criteria listed is the best example of the ignorance lining the entire body; not only do Muslims believe in Jesus, he is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, their holy book. The blunt truth is that the only mystery to be found is the intolerance one would require in order to type this all up in the first place. It insinuates that our questionable values are the base for the only legitimate culture; that a feudalistic capitalist society is the ideal utopian template! As if television, beer, and Wal-Mart are actually great accomplishments in history! Further, its direct xenophobic/isolationist language is a catalyst for all international hatred that seems endemic in North America. Please. Please. Please. Do not help spread this disease."

Money and the Fiction of Interest

Please, I beg you, correct me if I'm wrong. (Will, I'm looking at you here, pal!) I'm not an economist, have never worked in a finance, and can hardly balance a checkbook. Still, there's less to the concept of money than banks would like you to think; that's how they intimidate you into submission.

Between the beginning of organized community-based civilization and the adoption of monetary currency, people traded to acquire what they needed. The fisherman traded his fish for grain, the farmer traded his grain for wood, et cetera. This worked well until someone had all the grain they needed, and the farmer had nothing else to trade with. So along comes the banker.

The banker whips up some money; for example, $1000 for everyone. He affirms that he owns the money, but he'll gladly borrow it out to the community for a small fee, which he'll collect at the end of the year. The bank even offers a generously low interest rate of 5%. Not bad, huh?

Yet, once the year is over, everyone discovers something: even though they all end the year with exactly as much as they began, nobody has enough to pay the borrowing fee. So the banker makes them an offer. Pay attention, because this next part is the swindle.

Everyone in the community borrowed $1000, and now because of interest, they all owe $1050. The bank then takes back all the money that exists, leaving everyone with no actual way to pay their debt. The bank records that everyone owes $50, then lends out another $1000 to everyone for the upcoming year, still with 5% interest.

So even in a best-case scenario that assumes everyone in the community ends the year with as much as they began, debt is still perpetual. In a worst-case scenario, of course, a few people are able to pay their debt back, most are in perpetual debt, and a few are bankrupt and left to starve.

Today, banks operate on the same principle, but without the inconvenience of tangible, physical money. Currency is nearly completely theoretical. It exists electronically, being created out of thin air. It's fiction. This is why if everyone withdrew all their savings at the same time, there would not be enough money for everyone. It is a debt-based system.

Unfortunately, money is the dominant system of our civilization. And while I do support a money-free society, it is simply not possible in the near future. Realistically, even a complete collapse of the current financial system wouldn't be enough to implement something different. It is still quite impossible to buy food and shelter with good intentions, so whether or not money is a good thing, it is a wretched necessity of the present. And yet, it doesn't even exist.

The Electoral Process

(This is a message to anybody who doesn't vote, an excerpt from conversations I've had, once quite recently.)

It's true; democracy doesn't work. I've voted for a losing party in absolutely every election since I turned 18. In each instance, my vote truly did not matter, and so it was effectively the same as if I hadn't voted at all. So yes, the system is flawed.

However, to change the system, the choice isn't between voting and not voting. That's a false dichotomy. The real choice is between voting and revolution. Either the system is changed from within or it is changed by force, so unless you're willing to pick up a weapon and literally fight for change, your only choice is to vote.

Most people that don't participate in elections use the "my vote doesn't matter" argument simply to justify their apathy, their laziness. They are actually unwilling to take steps towards any type of change, let alone the simpler of the two. There's an old saying, a well-worn Hollywood cliché, "we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Well, in our society, the easy way is voting and the hard way is revolution. The irony is, to actually change anything, the easy way is actually very hard. And it takes a long time.

So yes, it's true, my vote never made a difference. But somebody else's did. And I can live with this because I'm aware that I'm not willing to pick up a gun and fight. Not alone.

The system is flawed, but it's not enough just to talk about its failure. You have to understand its weaknesses; and the biggest weakness of all is to do absolutely nothing.