A movement towards true health will look like everyone waking up to the reality that we’re all being driven toward extinction via climate collapse or nuclear war by a ruling class who used propaganda to trick us into thinking that its suicidal trajectory was the moderate path. Obviously when we create our new model we won’t all agree with each other about the best direction to take it, but we’ve got to overhaul the old one first.
This is absolutely imperative in recognizing the present, very real trajectory of humanity. There isn’t any “middle ground” among any establishment presidential candidate, and yes, this does mean every candidate running for President under the Democratic banner; they are all fundamentally seeking, at best, band-aids for fuckeduptitude. And if humanity is to move forward, it needs to understand the reality of current economic practices on its global scale, all of which being predominantly associated with capitalism.
This, in turn, has been leading myself to consider an argument that has been going on for quite some time now and noticeable as relatively recent critique by prominent thinkers, that is: What does that future change look like? Which, on the surface, seems a reasonable question. The claimed challenge being, in asking such a question, if we do not have any answer immediately in place, action forward is therefore meaningless. It could be reasonably argued this is what took place with the Russian revolution in that there was no solid understanding of what exactly should replace the crown, other than the well understood opposition to a blatant class system that had evolved into what I refer to as royal capitalism, which is essentially feudalism on steroids and meth. Of course, as we know, their answer was an attempt to render socialism, but as we know today, there was no solid understanding of how socialism should be practiced, and what eventually, tragically, took root, was the worst form of socialism (i.e. communism), which effectively played out as structural classism with, once again, shitty ass assholes up at the top making decisions that directly benefit themselves and those who support their selfish desires, as opposed to the masses. Though, in this case, there was at least the tiniest of ideas about what the revolutionaries were wishing to bring about, unlike today.
A more recent example of critique to revolutionary change is in noting responses to revolutionary thematic film/literature. A wonderful example of this is noting Slavoj Zizek’s critique to the film V for Vendetta, that being essentially, if the masses don’t already have in place an idea of what you want to replace the current system, revolution is a pipe dream. And it is on this idea that I’m not necessarily sold for the fact that humanity, if not most certainly civilization, is on the precipice of destruction for a significant period of time, if humanity is so fortunate. The question being, even if humanity doesn’t have the exact answer of what needs to be implemented in place of the present system, is it therefore not worth a massive swath of the humanity’s effort to attempt to save itself from, what appears to be, inevitable destruction under the current social paradigm (i.e. a fundamentally economic class system that intentionally benefits a select small percentage over a massively huge percentage of the world’s population, at the expense of the planet and all its sacred life)?
Which leads me to conclude, at the very least, continuing to note the varieties of fuckeduptitude with the current system in place is necessary, and, is worthy of challenging to the very extent of demanding change, even if we don’t fully realize how to implement that change. This is, I fully admit, a frightening idea because I am fully aware that this does, quite likely, bring forth a great deal of violent kick back on the part of the establishment, which has been their long consistent and only response. But what seems valuable in considering, is the wealth of humanity who recognize that the system in place is not benefiting humanity and the planet we live on. This very awareness is what will prevent the sustainability of the current paradigm to stay in place; despite human’s resiliency, there’s only so much fuckeduptitude humans are willing to endure before they snap. Thus, it would seem worthy of humanity to have a set goal in place or at least a solid idea — and this is where I personally find a lot of the zeitgeist movement intriguing, but admittedly not 100% sold on “is this the answer?”—but even if that answer, or general idea isn’t in place, to think such a current system will not get to the point of demanding change is complete folly. Which, ultimately comes down to, whose side - the few or the many - will you defend?
Now, I’m fully aware that leaves in place a system of chaos for a time, if a plan is not already in place. But even if that’s the case, it’s difficult for me to think there will not be pockets of humans across the globe aware that creating a world system that utilizes current technologies, with planning for future humanely sustainable growth, that ultimately benefits the sacredness of both our natural environment and those existing on it as a whole, as opposed to a select few, will propagate out and up into humanity’s next, necessary, individual and social transformative consciousness. Or, at least, that’s most certainly what I hope for all our sake.
— — — —
Dear Future Alien Archeologist and Anthropologist,
We tried and died.
With love, Humanity