Trump: What to do

The hysteria about the election of Trump as president largely misses the point. Yes, he is dangerously impulsive, horribly narcissistic, incompetent, arrogant – and all the rest. Yes, he can and is already showing clear signs of actually doing enormous harm to the people of the United States and of the rest of the world. But, that is not the point. Many nations, in fact most nations, in the world have had, at some point, someone like Trump at the helm. There are so many examples in recent history and examples could be traced all the way back into ancient times. Damage has been done, tragedies occurred. But, at some time also, they fall from power and the people readjust, perhaps somewhat wiser—for a time!

Trump will do harm; the people will be watchful; some may find the means to limit the damage and perhaps even remove him from office. Rather than ranting about how awful he is, the people need to be paying attention to how he can be restrained or even removed and, in the meantime, we must do what we can to protect the most vulnerable and sustain the best of life around us.

Trump can do enormous damage. However, after his four or eight years, life will take another turn just as it has so many times in the past after a totally incompetent or brutal leader has ruled. Life and the society that nourishes it will continue.

What is important is to pay attention to the political and cultural system that brought him to power and to readjust that system so that there are safeguards. There will certainly be a need to reconsider the constitutional and political mechanisms that made the election of such a man possible.

Surely we can deal with the long-term health of society rather than ranting about what a terrible man he is. There is hard work ahead for all of us during these next few years to limit the harm, protect people and prepare for what comes afterward. 

Journal #2: Sustainability

 (Continuation of the Journal begun in the previous entry. The text dates from the early 1990s.)

World March of Women 2015 - Quebec

    When I was born World War II raged. At the end there was a promise of a new age of prosperity and peace through technology and science. And through the fifties and then the sixties, it seemd to deliver. Lester Pearson (then Prime Minister of Canada) offered "Atoms for Peace." Among the very first books I ever read in the local library was a simple explanation of atomic theory. I learned how reactors worked. I became fascinated with science. The green revolution promised prosperity for poor countries. The United nations, which I visited when I was 15, promised an end to war between Nations. Kennedy came along, with Martin Lucher King, and we dreamed of racial equality (in the U.S.A.). And then ... it began to unravel. And we began to recognize the limiations and not only the limitation but we began to take stock of the dimensions of resistance (from privileged interests, from the transnationals, from governments and the media, from the military, even from the rigid attitudes of the poor who had bought the dream - and from the Church. It was not going to be either easy or quick. The entire structure had to be dismantled and reconstructed. Maybe we'd never see more than some signs of utopia in our own lifetime.   ...
     The struggle for a sustainable way of living, a sustainable economy and politics involves a careful mapping out of a new way of understanding fundamental human ventures. It means a new way of looking at science and technology, of the secular and the rleigious. It is a question of revisioning, but it is also a quesstion of evoling a strategy of moving from where we are now. ...
     Chicken Little cried, "The heavens are falling, the heavens are falling." And indeed they are. The world will end. I have seen the world end several times in my life. ... But we learn to survive the crises and the deaths. Each provides a challenge and also an opportunity.

Chartre des valeurs - Quebec Charter of Values

  The debate regarding Quebec’s proposed Charter of values has taken a preoccupying turn in the last few days. The time has come to attempt to adjust the aim and, hopefully , come to a more fruitful dialogue about the proposal.

Photo from Radio-Canada

     First of all, I am of the opinion that the proposed charter is not in any way racist. The reason is because of the context. I am of the school that understands racism to be discrimination by a group holding dominant power in society; it is directed against an oppressed people, often a minority, because of an incidental element (for example, skin colour).  The Charter cannot be racist because Quebec is itself an oppressed minority struggling for its survival as a francophone society. An oppressed society cannot be racist.

     However, and for me this is extremely important, any society, including an oppressed and marginalized society, can be discriminatory. Discrimination is a larger term of which racism is one expression.

     It is my view that the Quebec government has decided to invoke its constitutional right to discriminate. This is written into the charter of rights through the notwithstanding clause. It has done so by invoking the important character of its unique status as a religiously neutral state within Canada. This is seen as a way of assuring Quebec’s continuing identity within the larger context of North America. In other words, the Quebec government seems prepared to discriminate for the good of the societal project to which it claims most people in Quebec are in agreement.

     However, the question then becomes whether or not the Quebec government is justified in such discrimination. My answer would be a resounding no. My reason for rejecting the proposed charter then, is that I cannot accept that the discrimination invoked here will advance the special character of the project of society at work in Quebec. It will, in fact, work much to its detriment. This is not at all like the passage of Law 101 that resulted in the exit of many Anglophones from Quebec. They were in fact part of the dominant force in North American society.  The Charter proposal goes much further in discriminating against some of the most vulnerable people in Quebec: immigrants, women, and religious minorities.

     I am convinced that the Quebec government has shot itself in the foot by proposing this Charter. It has lost whatever support and credibility it might have among religious minorities as also among a good part of the religious majority (Christians) and, not least, among many immigrants and women.   

The only motivation I can find behind the proposal is strictly electoral: The government is under the impression that the proposal will strongly unite its bases within the regions of Quebec outside of Montreal and within all the traditional Quebec society - those identified as “de souche.”  And it may well be that the debate will provide the Partie québecois with a chance to become a majority government after the next election. However, in that case, what will be left of the famous inclusive project of society for Quebec. I fear: very little.

Symboles religieux en public - Religious Symbols in Public

The Quebec government has a plan to forbid any religious symbol in any public post : this would include, apparently, crucifixes worn around the neck, scarves worn by Muslim women, kirpans worn by Sikhs, etc.  It would include anyone who holds an office in public service including government employees but also those working in education, health, nurseries etc.  Most likely the document, announced as a Quebec Charter of Values, will be honed down considerably before being actually presented in the Assembly. However, the reactions are already vociferously negative. What follows in a brief explanation of why religious symbols are important to ordinary people and why they cannot be outlawed in public. I posted it earlier in a conversation on Facebook.

     Pour beaucoup de monde les signes religieuses, comme la religion comme tel, n'est pas une question des valeurs personnels privés. Il fait partie de leur identité et c'est très public; il fait partie de la façon dont ils participent en société. Pensez aux autochtones. Même si ce n'est pas strictement une religion qu'ils pratiquent, l'exemple est important. Ils ont vraiment besoin de montrer leurs options culturelles, leurs valeurs et leur façon de comprendre leur place dans l'univers d’une façon sociale, partagé. Ils n'imposent pas, mais ils s'expriment. C'est un peu la même chose pour les juifs - je pense aux Hasidim. Ce n'est pas question de prosélytisme mais d'expression d’un peuple de leur présence dans la société. Il ne faut absolument pas leur nier ça. Le même vaut aussi pour les musulmans, les sikhs, les hindous et, qu'on veut ou non, pour les chrétiens. Si ces gens travaillent dans des postes publics ou s'ils participent aux activités sociales, ils ont le droit d'être présents tels qu'ils sont sans imposition.= ni d'un côté ni de l'autre.

     Il faut reconnaitre que le mot religion a une histoire absolument fascinant. Pour la plupart de ce que nous appelons des religions aujourd'hui, les gens de ces traditions ne se reconnaissent pas dans le mot. Pour eux et pour elles c'est simplement la vie. C'est le cas pour la plupart des peuples indigènes du monde; c'est vrai pour les hindous et les bouddhistes et c'est aussi vrai pour les chrétiens des premiers trois siècles. L'idée de religion comme aussi de sécularité a été imposé par l'Europe -- et assez tard !

    En effet, "religio" (du latin) trouve son origine dans la pratique officieuse de l'Empire romaine où religion est une affaire d'État et au service de l'État. C'est de là qui commencent tous les problèmes surtout quand le christianisme devient religion d'État. Cette histoire d’un culte organisé par le roi et son cour est bien sur beaucoup plus ancienne. On l'avait dans tous les régimes de l'ancien Moyen Orient. Et les juifs eux-mêmes sont tombe là-dedans pendant un temps. Mais, il faut distinguer tout ça de ce que vivent les gens de la base. Le problème c'est qu’on ne peut pas les séparer complètement - comme on voit en Amérique Latine et aussi en Moyen Orient et en Asie.

Questions for Activists

    A few weeks ago I was asked to provide some questions for activists from around the world who would be meeting to discuss their various struggles. Three areas of dialogue came to mind.

From http://spinsucks.com

1.          When we analyze social dynamics, we normally look to the major actors. However, besides the obvious, visible ones, there are those who are hidden. They are often more significant. If we are discussing a gold mine, we might look to the board of directors, or its president. If we are talking about government policy, we consider the influence of the ministers. However, we need also to ask who wields the hidden power that moves the underlying dynamic?  Who pulls the strings? This pushes our analysis an important step further. It makes us look not only at the hidden players but also at the broad underlying interests at play in the field. If we don’t ask this question, we are only half-way to understanding what is happening.

2.          Beyond analysis and the consequent demands we might envisage in a campaign for change, we also need to consider how people can be mobilized to demand that change. A good analysis is not enough, nor is a well thought-out demand. If the struggle is to have concrete and long-term results vast sectors of the population need to take it on. Beyond the small core of activists, this normally means appealing to various sectors of the population: unions, students, teachers, parents, artists, journalists, the media in general, religious groups, professionals…. It will probably mean mobilizing various cultural and immigrant communities. If we don’t do this work, the struggle will remain in a small niche without much impact. At any given moment, the analysis of a capacity for mobilization will have to take into account a multitude of conjunctural elements. The underlying culture of resistance needs also to be considered. 

3.         Probably the most important question activists need to ask themselves is “Who am I?”  This is not an immediately obvious priority but it is fundamental. Many activists become discouraged when their efforts do not bring about immediate or even medium-terms results. The temptation can be to withdraw or to infuse their activism with uncontrolled anger that bypasses a solid connection with social realities.

   The dominant society tells us that we are isolated individuals working in competition with each other for comparative advantage. If we don’t face the question of who we are, our social movements degenerate into a multitude of angry factions fighting blindly for their ends and against each other. However, when we truly understand who we are, we discover that we are not isolated individuals nor is competition the fundamental dynamic.

   We are part of a living web of billions of humanity who long for another world that is possible. We share that dream with the many billions of creatures who inhabit the earth, water and air. In their own way and according to the place they occupy and the gifts they have been given,  each contributes to creating that flourishing of life and diversity that the Earth dreams of.  We are in fact not discrete, isolated individuals. We are not alone. We do not carry the whole burden of the world. There is no doubt at all that life will have the final word. Whenever we get discouraged about the lack of “progress” in our social struggles, we need to return to that fundamental vision of who we are: part of a vast web of life of Earth. What we are asked to do is not to bring about the big-bang change that will transform everything in a moment, but rather, like the hummingbird faced with a forest fire,  we go to the lake and carry a drop of water to the forest. In other words, do what we can and entrust the rest to our Earth family.

The Scenario

The plan is actually quite simple. By now, everyone knows that climate change will make much of the world uninhabitable. Huge storms will cause catastrophes including loss of infrastructure, migration and massive deaths. Food will become scare -- over half of the arable land on the planet has already been destroyed.

The richest of the planet, the one percent, have a plan. It is probably not a conspiracy but rather a shared implicit logic that grows out of preserving self-interest.  More and more the lines of that logic are becoming clear.

Massive amounts of money are poured into arms and the military needed in order to control the unrest and wars that erupt as a result of changing conditions.

Because of the disruption of climate change as well as the wars that result, close to 90% of the world’s population will disappear. (Many scientists agree on this percentage.) That will leave just enough people to assure the infrastructure (food, industry, security) that would allow the very rich to continue in their lifestyle. In fact the 90% who will disappear are, in any case, dispensable within the current economic structures.

Massive restrictions on freedom and powerful military deployment will be needed to make sure that the  population remains faithful to their job of producing enough to keeping the workers in the economy alive and satisfied as well as, especially, to maintain the lifestyle of the very rich.

Should the planet swing entirely out of control, a last-ditch emergency plan would be to set up on another planet. The proposed one-way expedition to Mars is a trial balloon in that direction, an avant-guard who will work out the details of establishing a human colony elsewhere. Ultimately this would, once again, imply the transfer of a very small group (0.1% of the 10 % that remain, along with enough people to work to keep them in comfort). In a sense, society will continue to be normal in the sense that there will be approximately the same propositions of super-rich, middle class and poor. In that sense, everyone will continue to find their place though the scale will be reduced.  Those who retire into self-sufficiency, who provide for their own food sustainably will be inundated with hungry outsiders or raided by armed looters.

Am I exaggerating?  Am I retreating into science fiction? Not entirely. This is a scenario that could be realized within the next fifty years, that is to say, within the lifetime of many of those already living on the planet. What is needed is a massive, global upheaval. I am pretty sure that, at some point, it will come. However, I am also sure that the super-rich will be ready with their (massive) security precautions in place.

There is of course an alternative, a difficult one but one that is quite realizable. As long as we continue to contribute to the destruction of the planet required by the growing inequality between the super-rich and those entirely abandoned by the world economy, the logic described above will surely work its way forward. Fiddling with the current economic and political structures have repeatedly demonstrated little or no changes in the patterns.  Why is it that most people in the world, who are very aware of the general lines of this process, continue to follow their daily routines. We accept the political and economic processes with resignation and believe that the imperfections will be dealt with by those who hold public office?  What could be more insane?

The Great Plague of the 21st Century

I warn you that the following is not a glowing report of hopes for the future grounded in New Year optimism. It is, in fact, rather apocalyptic.. In any case, what I say here needs to be said and even repeated.



Found at http://hoocher.com/Charles_II
_of_England/Charles_II_of_England.htm

    A strong link exists, it seems to me, between the growing inequality in the economic world (where relatively few individuals now control the majority of the world’s economy) and the obvious crisis for humanity represented by the rapidly advancing phenomenon of climate change.  At the same time, it is important to underline from the start that climate change does not represent a crisis for the planet. Earth is quite capable of dealing with the impact of the various devastations posed by human economic and military adventures. It will adapt and continue to foster life. More than that, Earth will deal with the impact of human presence as it does with any other extreme phenomenon by eliminating the cause. It is humans who are in crisis of extermination. Moreover, I am convinced that the wealthy and powerful of this world are, consciously or subconsciously, aware of this and have, for a long time now, been taking measures to deal with it in their own way.      This tiny but privileged group is aware that the current economic and political trends are suicidal and so, true to their nature as controllers and dominators, have determined to make sure that they, at least -- if no others -- will survive. They have confidence that their immense economic and political leverage will assure that, when push comes to shove and when the economic, geophysical and political structures fall into chaos, they will be able to provide a “bubble” to protect themselves. Even under the direst scientific predictions, about 10% of the population should be able to survive. They want to make sure that they are included. Theirs is a huge gamble but, as a group they are the ultimate gamblers.
     This tiny group of hugely influential individuals believe in their privileged capacity to surround themselves with the security provided by gated communities, military and paramilitary protection as well as all the infrastructures to assure that they need not worry about anything that happens to the planet. While I do not believe there is an overt conspiracy here, I do believe that their reliance on the power to control leads them inevitably toward a logic that leads to a conviction that power over economic and political process is the path to ultimate security. There is also a corollary: To hell with the rest of the world!  What is worse, I also think there is a chance that may be right.
     There is still another layer to this: Much of the world, especially the Western world, believes this also and, even though they are excluded from the securities provided to the rich and powerful, they are convinced that, given the right circumstances, they will be able to assure their place inside the bubble. Instinctively they realise that those few super-rich individuals will need people around them who sustain and support their survival. They want to be part of that bubble when it arrives. For this reason, most of the population of North America and Europe is ready to “go along with the system” and hope that the bubble will be large enough to cover them. As a result, the political and economic process continues regardless of its obvious consequences for vast regions of the world. The greatest danger to the survival of humanity lies with this internalized subjugation within the minds of the vast majority of the population. Moreover, the educational and media industries reinforce this internalized mentality day after day.
     The picture painted here is quite sombre and could easily lead to despair about the future and our ability to shape it for the good of all. We are in a time when faith and hope are faced with a darkness unlike anything society has known in past centuries -- except perhaps in Europe during the time of the Great Plague.
    In fact the experience of the Great Plague in Europe is worth exploring. At that time people experienced a terrible devastation that took tens of millions of lives without understanding where it was coming from or why. It took decades of persistent investigation to pinpoint the source of the problem, then more decades to convince society to deal with it. In the meantime the devastation continued. What is hopeful in all this is that eventually reason prevailed and, while it was the poor who suffered the brunt of the disaster, eventually the process wore itself out and people began to organize to protect society as a whole from the menace. There is a difference however, the plague was an epidemic. Epidemics have a life, it would seem, of about twenty years. By then the immune has adapted, to a large extent, to resist the attack. Unfortunately, in our current situation, there does not appear to be any immune adaptation foreseeable.
    If the worst scenario is to be avoided, it won’t happen without considerable effort and enormous losses along the way. We have an option before us: confide in the richest and most powerful to protect us, or dislodge the destructive trend -- against all odds, with a faith and courage that is not diminished by the enormity of the odds.