the games they want us to play

JMG has written an outstanding essay again. This essay has really made me think about the contrived, approved narratives used to discuss issues. We have the same approved narratives here in this country. In this essay JMG uses racism as an example.

There’s a school of psychology called transactional analysis, which focuses on interactions between people rather than the vagaries of the individual psyche. Transactional analysis covers a lot of ground, but I want to focus on just one of its themes here: the theory of interpersonal games...

There’s plenty more that could be said here about the details of the Rescue Game and the narrative of race derived from it, but at this point I’d like to consider three broader issues. The first is the relation between the game and the narrative, on the one hand, and the realities of racism in today’s America. I don’t doubt that some readers of this essay will insist that by questioning the narrative, I’m trying to erase the reality.  Not so. Racial privilege, racial prejudice, and racial injustice are pervasive factors in American life today.  The fact that the approved narrative of race in today’s America is deceptive and dysfunctional doesn’t make racism any less real; on the other hand, the fact that American racism is a stark reality doesn’t make the narrative any less deceptive and dysfunctional...

...Step back and look at the whole picture, and it’s not hard to see why this should be so. At any given time, after all, there are many different Rescue Games in play, with affluent white people always in the role of Rescuers and an assortment of less privileged groups alternating in the roles of Victims and Persecutors. Perhaps, dear reader, you find it hard to imagine why affluent white people would want to keep everyone else so busy fighting one another that they never notice who benefits most from that state of affairs. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that giving the underprivileged the chance to air their grievances and engage in a little socially sanctioned bullying is a great deal less inconvenient for the affluent than actually taking action to improve the lives of the underprivileged would be. Such thoughts seemingly never enter the minds of most Americans; I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.

 It is interesting to consider how narratives get forced back into the approved variety and how unconscious the whole process of 'narratives' is. What narratives are you buying into? As JMG says,

"Every society has a set of acceptable narratives that frame public discourse on any controversial subject, and trying to get past the narrow confines of any such narrative inevitably brings some form of pushback."

Reading the whole essay will provide so much information. One of the great things about JMG's writing is that each essay is self contained - in that you can understand and follow the points he is making from within the essay and it flows from previous to future essays.

understand and you will be free

I've been an avid follower of John Michael Greer for a few years now - he has really helped me see the truth and reality of today and our tomorrows. His latest post is no exception

...May I please be frank? The reason that millions of Americans have had their standard of living hammered for forty years, while the most affluent twenty per cent have become even more affluent, is no mystery. What happened was that corporate interests in this country, aided and abetted by a bipartisan consensus in government and cheered on by the great majority of the salary class, stripped the US economy of living wage jobs by offshoring most of America’s industrial economy, on the one hand, and flooding the domestic job market with millions of legal and illegal immigrants on the other. 

That’s why a family living on one average full-time wage in 1966 could afford a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other necessities and comforts of an ordinary American lifestyle, while a family with one average full time wage in most US cities today is living on the street. None of that happened by accident; no acts of God were responsible; no inexplicable moral collapse swept over the American wage class and made them incapable of embracing all those imaginary opportunities that salary class pundits like to babble about. That change was brought about, rather, by specific, easily identifiable policies. As a result, all things considered, blaming the American poor for the poverty that has been imposed on them by policies promoted by the affluent is the precise economic equivalent of blaming rape victims for the actions of rapists. 

In both cases, please note, blaming the victim makes a convenient substitute for talking about who’s actually responsible, who benefits from the current state of affairs, and what the real issues are. When that conversation is one that people who have a privileged role in shaping public discourse desperately don’t want to have, blaming the victim is an effective diversionary tactic, and accordingly it gets much use in the US media these days. There are, after all, plenty of things that the people who shape public discourse in today’s America don’t want to talk about. The fact that the policies pushed by those same shapers of opinion have driven millions of American families into poverty and misery isn’t the most unmentionable of these things, as it happens. The most unmentionable of the things that don’t get discussed is the fact that those policies have failed. 

It really is as simple as that. The policies we’re talking about—lavish handouts for corporations and the rich, punitive austerity schemes for the poor, endless wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, malign neglect of domestic infrastructure, and deer-in-the-headlights blank looks or vacuous sound bites in response to climate change and the other consequences of our frankly moronic maltreatment of the biosphere that keeps us all alive—were supposed to bring prosperity to the United States and its allies and stability to the world. They haven’t done that, they won’t do that, and with whatever respect is due to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, four more years of those same policies won’t change that fact. The difficulty here is simply that no one in the political establishment, and precious few in the salary class in general, are willing to recognize that failure, much less learn its obvious lessons or notice the ghastly burdens that those policies have imposed on the majorities who have been forced to carry the costs...

If you want to know what is really going on - read JMG, if you want an idea of how everything is likely to go over the next few years and decades - read JMG. If you are worried about your children's and their children's and their children's future - read JMG. Knowledge is power - the power to make it as good as it can be, the power to protect and nurture, the power to live simply in community sustainable and free. The power to fulfill our destinies. Don't give up your power because you are afraid of the knowledge. Embrace the knowing and the uncertainties, embrace the 'now' and let's work together for the future.

Go home - it is a safe place - make it so

We need to rethink a few things. Climate change is reality and so is peak oil and the effects of both along with the degradation and pollution we have wrought on Papatūānuku. There is a time of change upon us - we created it and we will have to live with and through it. We will have to give up some things but we will also gain a lot and the things we give up are not valuable whereas what we will gain is invaluable. To paraphrase JMG - collapse now and avoid the rush - or maybe collapse now while you can. Collapse? WTF! Yep and what it means is moving to a simpler lifestyle a more direct lifestyle from what we do to what we get. A reduction of all of the intermediary steps/jobs/people between what we do and what we get. Eating food grown locally for instance, rather than exotic stuff flown in from godknowswhere so that we, in our extravagant western lifestyles, can eat it. We are all going to have to make changes and Māori as indigenous people of this land can lead and show others how to do it.

Many Māori are on the way and programs like Manawa Hou are also invaluable - they show how we used to live and that knowledge of the past is essential to build our futures. It would take some wrangling but this idea from Rankin would be a good start

An economic historian is calling for the benefit system to become more flexible to allow people to function within traditional subsistence economies.Keith Rankin from Unitec was responding to a challenge from Mana leader Hone Harawira that the Abbott Government’s removal of support from remote Australian Aboriginal communities was similar to Work and Income’s policy of not paying benefits to Maori who return to their home rural villages.
He told Radio Waatea’s Dale Husband that being able to turn to a subsistence lifestyle during downturns in the economic cycle was a normal part of capitalism.

Instead of calling people to the cities, help them move out to the rural areas and pay the to do it. This would rejuvenate those areas, release pressure from the cities infrastructure, help reinforce connections and communities, teach the basics like how to grow food, how to live in a community, how to live simpler lifestyles and so on and so on. Many Māori are connecting back to their ancestral marae. This connecting can be encouraged and facilitated by Government for all of the reasons above. To further encourage the move I'd pay superannuation earlier to Māori going home so that they could learn and teach and build the mana of their marae and themselves.

The destruction of our currently structured society is likely to be slow, with falls, then plateaus, with false hope, then dashed dreams - we will live it and we will need to adjust to it, physically and mentally. Go home - it is a safe place - make it so.

when it rains don't go swiming

I am very concerned about our rivers and I know I'm not the only one. When I say rivers I really mean water - that essential component of life that should be available to all. Part of my concern is due to the dairy farming and the excessive cowshit flushed into the water systems. When it rains don't go swimming because many stormwater systems just cannot cope - and that is with human and animal waste.

The story below illustrates the animal waste situation well. (pun intended)

Stuff

At least 138 Darfield residents had serious stomach upsets after drinking water contaminated with animal waste.

The Canterbury District Health Board's Community and Public Health division has released its report on last year's outbreak of waterborne gastroenteritis in Darfield.

Twenty-nine people tested positive for campylobacter in the July and August outbreak. Another 109 people were defined as having probable campylobacteriosis.

Canterbury medical officer of health Dr Ramon Pink said the outbreak happened after heavy rain caused animal effluent to enter an untreated well.

That is a lot of sick people and I fear this type of event will increase as we continue to bend over backwards to supply dairy farmers with water, so they can make money, and as a consequence we have spoiled water or depleted rivers. It is common I believe and I know of more than a few instances where farmers have diddled the system to get more water than the rivers can allow - leading to dried up streams and fish gasping for breath in fetid ponds. Too often I also see the farmer near us let his cows wander down to the river to drink and shit with impunity - what has happened to the clean streams accord? Well it was voluntary - nuff said.

This despoilment of the commons was touched on by JMG and I recommend reading this post from him. We have to take back our commons and restore equality for people and communities and we have to start now while the rivers have some chance of recovery.

As for dairy farmers - first I would make their personal water supply be sourced downstream from their farms - that would sort 90% of it out quite quickly imo.

doing as a doomer

John Michael Greer is the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America, and his blog The Archdruid Report is essential reading for anyone interested in the ramifications of peak oil and our society. His weekly postings lead the reader through layers of complexity via delightful writing. He weaves his narrative over many interrelated subjects and he doesn't flinch from the truth..As you can tell I am a fan.


His latest post really opened my mind to the interconnections of so many areas. This is the last paragraph - to see how this paragraph ties the whole post together please read the full post here.

I have begun to suspect that this will turn out to be one of the most crucial downsides of the arrival of peak oil. If the industrial economy, as I’ve suggested, was basically an arbitrage scheme profiting off the difference in cost between energy from fossil fuels and energy from human laborers, the rising cost of fossil fuels and other inputs needed to run an industrial economy will sooner or later collide with the declining cost of labor in an impoverished and overcrowded society. As we get closer to that point, it seems to me that we may begin to see the entire industrial project unravel, as the profits needed to make industrialism make sense dry up. If that’s the unspoken subtext behind the widening spiral of economic dysfunction that seems to be gripping so much of the industrial world today, then what we’ve seen so far of what peak oil looks like may be a prologue to a series of wrenching economic transformations that will leave few lives untouched.

I suppose i am a doomer. I do believe that peak oil has occured and the effects as the Archdruid explains, will affect us all. I also believe that climate change is happening and is having and will continue to have accerlating negative worldwide effects. I see Fukishima is still putting highly radioactive material into the sea - anyway the list of portents is endless. I do beieve we are heading for a major downgrade but i don't think it is a cliff necessarily. I enjoy the Archdruid's discussions on the topic because he is focused on the real issue and that is how it will affect people and communities. His viewpoint is very considered and compassionate. Whatever happens connecting people will be the best solution, building relationships and cooperation, building communities and looking after each other. And the time to start is now.

misleading is not unfair

I don't miss many of the misinformations they put out about Hone Harawira and the Mana Party, even though I don't have a TV or read the paper - i check the news on the net and that is pretty similar but better because you can often go to the source and read differing views, if you want to. and sometimes a story pops up that you can't remember and before you know it, you know it. That is the case about this story where TV1 presented an item which said that Hone had “racked up a $35,000 travel bill... that’s almost $4000 more than the Māori Party’s total travel bill”. They didn't mention that the Māori Party received money from more than one source and when added together, made their statement 'misleading'.

The BSA have ruled that the item was misleading

ODT

we consider that viewers would have been left with the impression that the figures reported constituted total travel expenditure for the period specified, and not just expenditure administered by one agency,'' 

The misleading item created a negative attitude towards Hone for some, and reinforced and validated others who already held those views - and for some supporters, it may have created doubt. The misleading item was designed to discredit Hone and to reduce his mana. It has ended up doing the opposite of course. The second part of the judgement is disconcerting - it relates to whether the TV item was 'unfair'.


Now in view of the fact that the BSA has said that the item was misleading I expected that the item would also be ruled unfair simply because it was misleading. But I was wrong. Unfair is breached when an item strays into 'abusively personal territory', it is not based on whether it was misleading or not. So this misleading item was deemed not unfair and the additional rationale seems strange to me too,

The BSA said that because he was a high profile and often controversial politician, "he should expect to face robust criticism, especially with regard to the expenditure of public money''.

Is airing a misleading item robust criticism, especially in regard to expenditure of public money? I would say no! How can it be when the item was misleading - by definition it was not fair.

Maybe it is the definition of fairness that needs to be changed. We have an election coming up and that is why we need to be especially careful in exposing their dirty tricks.


Hone and Mana are working hard and there is lots going on and this is the quiet before the storm and oh what a memory Mana will create - from us, to the generations to come.


Kim at He Hōaka has written some awesome posts about Mana and other interesting areas.


and another favorite blog at the moment The Archdruid Report - I just love the way John writes and what he writes about - he absolutley gets it and can explain it so that you just want to read more.