Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (2 comments)

Radical social change? You can't get there from here.

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 1 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

The human race is fundamentally, socially defective. 

Politics is whistling in a dark that's not listening and institutionalized religion appeals only to two digit IQ's.

But our suffering is real and more than anything else it defines the human condition.

The essence of the problem is that we absolutely don't know how to live together in ways which are sane, rational, and kind.  But even that's too simplistic, because the problem is even beyond our ability to "define" it.  All we DO know is that since the beginning of recorded history, practically all of us have been living in chronic misery.

We may have some vague sense of what our lives could be like if we somehow solved the "social problem" (can we put it like that?).  But the torturing heart of this is that we HAVE NO CLUE how to do it.

Sure, we have a list of crapolas like politics, religion, and sometimes even revolution, but alas, they are much ado about nothing.  Indeed, if we are really honest (which we are maybe 0.01% of the time), we will acknowledge that these things always have been, are now, and always will be more part of the problem than the solution.

It's hard to imagine ANYONE on planet Earth who still thinks "politics" is going to radically socially change anything.  Of course, that's exactly what most of us actually DO believe, so we keep (in the words of an ancient Chinese Zen master) "washing off blood with blood."

Indeed, the worst thing about all our pitiful attempts to solve the social problem is that all these attempts ARE THEMSELVES an expression OF the problem.

American politics, for example, is based on the irrational and virtually "mentally ill" assumption that we have a two party system.  But, it is blatantly obvious (or should be) that behind our political "representatives" (like the 2004 Democratic Congress of traitors) are evil forces powerful beyond our dreams. 

Indeed, here's an example of how what we're dealing with is simply off the chart.  The forces of evil behind our pseudo two party system are called the elites, and the international elites make up much less than 1% of the human race, but they basically control EVERYTHING in our social/political lives, and have been doing so for around the last 6,000 years.

OK, now that's a statement of hard core social, historical fact.  That is what is REALLY GOING ON and all the meaningless election jive is just the dancing of boot licking political puppets of the elites -- you know, a sort of "good cop" and "bad cop", or Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber.

However, the worst part of this is that even such a direct perception of "the reality of politics" is itself relatively worthless.  Yes, it's correct to say (1.) America does not have a two party system, and (2.) the American elites live like literal Greek Gods.  And why not even throw in a (3.) that the evidence is now MOUNTAINOUS that 9/11 was an "inside job" engineered by the Bush fascists, with almost certainly a great deal of help from, let's just say, certain Middle Eastern friends.

OK, now what?  Even if these statements are true, then what the bloodly hell do we do about it?  Are we going to "vote the bums out"?  But that's impossible, since the 2004 Congress proved that dems = pugs and pugs = dems.  Back to good cop and bad cop.  Back to the elite Greek Gods. And back to a 9/11 that's now buried deeper than Kennedy's assassination.  And please note that BOTH of our presidential candidates are staying light years away from 9/11, which may well be the most evil and world changing event in human history.

So, here we are, living in an elite manufactured hell (and by the way, elites used to be called the aristocracy) and there's absolutely, absolutely nothing we can do about it. 

How about a literal revolution?  Isn't THAT radical social change?  Well, history has shown us that things are usually worse after a revolution than they were before, so more futility. 

Probably all this sounds very negative and some of you would prefer to sing a more positive song.  Well sing away, but psst!, the elites aren't listening.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Radical social change by R. A. Landbeck on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:13:31 PM
the box or eagle wings by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) on Thursday, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:19:44 PM