Feeds:
Posts
Comments

from 04.Nov.2004

The political views of John Kerry never interested me so I did not bother investing any energy into his campaign. Once I learned that he was a member of the Skull and Bones, a part of the Illuminati, I knew that he was not a man to be trusted, despite his campaign promises; an anti-war Vietnam Veteran who spoke of killing the “terrorists” and sending another 40 thousand troops into Iraq.

The whole political party system – the Democrats and the Republicans – is no doubt one in the same. The whole voting process is a deceptive ploy, a very effective way to give us the illusion that there is democracy in america and that people have the power. People often become irate when they hear that someone does not use their democratic right to vote, but in light of the last two elections, what difference did it make?

Upon learning that Kerry was a member of this elitist secret society it became evident that he and Bush were “brothers” of the “Great White Brotherhood” that go way back, that have an ironclad pact between them, and an agenda to carry out. Knowing this it also became evident that Bush would remain president – despite whether or not he actually received the vote of the people – to continue putting into place the agenda to manipulate and control the world and its resources. I think that Kerry knew all along that he would not win the election.

Post election this all seems more than plausible after witnessing how quickly Kerry conceded and congratulated Bush on his win. Perhaps Kerry was hand picked to play the role of contender against Bush because he would put up a good fight, and graciously bow out right after Bush was declared winner, before all of the ballots had even been counted. Of course, a brother of the Illuminati would do this, as part of the pact, for the Brotherhood.

Already we feel small in the scheme of things, but against the Illuminati we feel even more insignificant. There is no fighting and winning when up against the government despite our continued efforts and failed attempts. People like Michael Moore are allowed to carry on, to again give us the illusion of freedom of speech.

But as a personal opinion re Michael Moore, I think that he has done some brilliant work on educating us about important social issues, but I am not sure which side of the fence he is truly on. I liked elements of his film Bowling for Columbine but feel that he missed the boat on the real reason for the school shootings, namely the psychotropic drugs that most of the kids involved in the shootings were or had been medicated with. Was he turning our attention away from the pharmaceutical companies and towards guns as the culprits a way to protect these murderous wealthy corporations? Lets face it, there is a big push to medicate and therefore placate the masses, to keep us dumbed down for fear that we will rise up! And there is a lot of pressure being put on these pharmaceutical giants in a growing awareness of the suicidal and homicidal nature of these drugs.

With re to his film Fahrenheit 9/11, I feel that he left out a lot of very pertinent information as to what really happened. What I find most disturbing and downright dangerous is his endorsement of what our govermentment has told us, that the “Saudis” were the terrorists responsible for the attack on america. Moore is enjoying a pretty big and growing audience. People admire and respect his work and believe what he has to say; he has influence. So his insistence that the Arabs are to blame is a very reckless lie to perpetuate. I cannot help but wonder if he may be allowed to do what he does and even protected in exchange for disseminating this racist propaganda.

I do not claim to know enough about the inner workings of the Illuminati to say what it is really all about, but I do feel that it helps answer a lot of questions re what is going on in the world. I am not suggesting that we lay down and become passive in the belief that we are powerless against such an enormous machine, but neither do I think that we possess the kind of power that it takes to fight something this big and monstrous. Not in the way that we want to anyway such as smashing the system and starting a revolution to create a new government.

What I do think is, despite whatever this secret society does or is, it has but one *true* purpose: to illuminate, enlighten and transcend, to help wake us up!, to help move us towards a personal and planetary rEvolution.

Let’s face it, since Bush took office four years ago there has been a slow rousing of the masses. Thanks to him and his administration more people than anytime in history have taken to the streets in protest. It is said that the dreams with the most to teach us are the nightmares, the ones that really get us to sit up and pay attention. This administration and their tactics are quite nightmarish indeed, but it is causing people to sit up, to pay attention, and to question.

More than anytime in history, with rampant hunger, homelessness and violence against nature and the earth’s inhabitants, we need a strong jolt to wake us from our slumber, to arouse us from our stupor and call us to the front lines. Perhaps the real task of the Illuminati is nothing more than the catalyst to help illuminate the injustices that keep us prisoners of a corrupt and greedy system. It becomes our goal then to protest in some form as a way to evolve towards unity with all living beings.

from 03.Nov.2004

I pretty much dropped out of the drama of the race about a week and a half ago. The motivating force came after I saw the film I Heart Huckabees. It’s an outstanding film about how everything is all one energy, how it’s all interrelated. Its flavor is like that of What the Bleep… but with humor and a good story line. When I left the theatre I felt so much lighter, relief really, a feeling of surrender to that which I have no control over.

Before seeing that film I had recently reengaged my energy in politics, especially after seeing the documentary Hijacking Catastrophe and then hearing Nader speak.

Prior to 9/11 I didn’t really involve myself in what was happening in the political world. I knew that there was a lot of dirty deeds going on the world over, but frankly, I did not want to fill my psyche with all of that negativity.

I’ve read that whenever we watch, read or listen to the news, we visualize the events that are being broadcast, as if we are actually witnessing them, which has a toxic affect on the immune system. I am certain that it is not just the immunity that is compromised since politics really gets the fire raging, burning out the adrenals and quickening the pace of the heart, leading to nervous system disorders and heart dis-ease.

Not that I think that anger is a negative emotion. It can be an effective fuel for change. But as a fire that burns without an appropriate outlet it can become dangerous. Right about now there is a whole lotta blazing fury out there, and little ideas on how to channel it for positive change. So, without a proper outlet, it can erupt into violent outbursts. This was actually occurring even before the Bush victory with Democrats and Republicans fighting amongst themselves (often using physical force) about who had the best candidate. I find it interesting that the anti-war Democrats would resort to using violent tactics against the Republicans…

Returning to the discussion re my stint in activism, I took to the streets right after 9/11, armed with a large sign that had a picture of the earth and my message “ONE WORLD – ONE PEOPLE”. I just found it deplorable that we would barge into Afghanistan and blame them for what appeared to be an inside job. And even if that was not the case, where is the justification in carpet bombing a nation of innocent poverty stricken people based on a hunch that the mastermind was hiding in a cave there? My main compulsion to be visible in the streets was because of the rampant racism that was (and clearly continues) to circulate in aMErica against Muslims.

Over the months – with the continued military occupation of Afghanistan and the trampling of our civil liberties – my role in activism grew stronger and my voice louder, giving rise to more resentment, more angst, less inner peace and the restless feeling that my efforts were not really accomplishing anything, except perhaps releasing pent up rage. I grew increasingly disillusioned with rallies and protests while at the same time became more enraged at what my government was doing. My quitting activism came in the form of a car accident on my way home from a peace vigil on 9/11/02. It seemed a message from the universe to move in a different direction.

Today, I had planned on attending the vigil here in Eugene, mostly for photos and perhaps a story since I feel that it is important to document the dissent that is happening so that people know that we are not all conceding. I was not happy that Bush was going to continue in his charade as the president, but I didn’t vote for Kerry either, so I would not be up in arms about Kerry’s defeat like I knew a lot of those at the rally would be. To me, it seemed more than likely that Bush would be president for another four years given the great pains that he and his administration went to in putting their agenda into place, so the election results came as no surprise. My vote went to truth, to Nader.

With a little time to spare before the rally, I went to a park close to where I work, with camera in hand. Being in nature always righteously aligns me, especially this time of year with the glorious bounty of autumn color. To my surprise one of my favorite creatures was there in the small bubbling brook running parallel to the McKenzie River. Gracefully poised in the late afternoon sun was a magnificent Blue Heron. I was standing so close to it, much closer than I had ever gotten to one before. As I approached her to take photographs, she started moving as if readying to fly and after a few moments, sure enough, off she went. The sight of a Blue Heron in flight is about one of the most majestic there is. And the sound of those wings…

heron1

I saw where she landed in a tree a few hundred yards away so walked over towards it and took more photos. She clearly was aware of my presence and almost seemed to enjoy the attention. A few moments later she flew across the park and up into another tree. I followed her and again, took more pictures until she flew to another perch. She then landed onto the ground, walked very near to where I stood, and went back into the brook. When I moved closer she did not seem as nervous as when I first approached her. In fact, she looked right at me. I thanked her for allowing me to take the photos; there seemed to be a rapport between us.

As I left the park, my hands freezing and my compact disk card filled, I felt nourished and blessed. I realized that this was my form of protest today, quieting myself, stepping outside of the drama of politics, and being one with the world around me.

We have a choice where we put our energy, how we nurture ourselves, live our truth, and with whom we form our alliances. Although I stand in solidarity with my fellow activists in the street, my energy was better channeled by being in the company of yellow leafed trees, chilly November skies and the grace of a blue heron.

Rant for Truth – from 12.Oct.2004

I saw Nader when he was in Eugene a few nights ago. Earlier that day I went to the Bijou and saw Hijacking Catastrophe a film that shows how the Bush Corporation instilled (and continues to instill) fear as a way of pushing their agenda so that they could get their blank check and the jingoistic fervor of the aMErican people to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.

We all know it’s about oil, but as the film reminds us, it’s not just about oil. It’s also a way to gain complete control over the rest of the world, and soon to be with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, a way to wield control right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

As the credits for the film were rolling a few fervored Democrats in the audience yelled out to go to a table set up in the back of the theatre. So, I took the opportunity and said “Nader is in town tonight”, to which a couple of boos and hisses were generated. A few seconds later a woman rushed towards me and with the sound of contempt said “Who said that Nader is in town tonight”? I waved and said “I did”. She grabbed onto my hand, as if to shake it, and started proselytizing to me about Kerry. She told me to go see the film of him coming back from Vietnam, where 30 years ago this man became an anti-war activist. I told her “that was 30 years ago”. I also reminded her that Kerry is bought and paid for by the corporations.

All the while, she was holding onto my hand, squeezing it with a good deal of pressure, I’m sure as a way to try and impress upon me her opinion. You should have seen this woman’s eyes! Talk about fundamental zeal! All I said was “Nader is in town tonight”, a fyi kind of thing and this woman came unglued. Apparently she was not paying very close attention to the film when it talked about the differences between the Republican and the Democratic party, which are basically nil when it comes right down to it, which Nader also laid out for his captivated audience at the McDonald Theatre that night.

Why did Nader bother coming to Eugene anyway; a write in vote for him won’t even be counted, thanks to the Democrats and specifically to Secretary of State Bill Bradbury who was responsible for threatening and then defrauding Nader’s campaign by throwing out over 3000 votes because of some absurd “technical” errors. Nader’s a dangerous man you know; truth is always a threat to deception.

I’d never seen Nader speak before. He’s about as down to earth as they come. Absent is a glinting smile and the 5000 dollar suit. In fact, he was wearing a suit jacket with crumpled pockets and a pair of slacks. Nader can’t be bought. I didn’t see him smile at all (what’s to smile about when talking about the Corporate Supremacists”) but he did raise some ruckus a few times, like when he told us that Bush is a giant corporation masquerading as a human being in the White House.

From what I heard, he’s clearly a President for the People. Never mind that he will not be elected. Quoting the late political activist Eugene Debs, Nader said that you “lose and fight, lose and fight, lose and fight until you win!” Further quoting Debs he said “I’d rather vote for a candidate I believe in that loses than vote for a candidate I don’t believe in that wins”.

This rant is not an endorsement for Nader, it’s an endorsement for Truth, that Truth that lies buried beneath the built over rubble at ground zero, the Truth that emerging GI’s in Iraq are speaking out about, the Truth about Kerry and his real views on Waging War against Iraq, the Forests, and the Poor. Whomever can rise up and deliver the Truth gets my vote, nothing less.

I’ll not be joining the liberal masses to vote for, as Nader says, “the least worst”. Not that I’m a “liberal”; I’d be what they like to label *radical. Let me ask, what’s radical about wanting equal rights for all living beings, for wanting to protect the planet, for wanting to put an end to warring and controlling, corporate power, and profits over people? That’s not radical, its fucking rational.

Nader has a following despite the many democrats who despise him for “stealing the election from Gore”. It amazes me no matter how many times I am having a conversation with a group of people (who by this time all know that Bush was not elected president), say that Nader was the reason Gore was not elected. It’s really simple. Gore won the election. Bush lost the election. Bush and his cohorts hijacked the presidency and set up camp in the White House. It was a coup! Nader had nothing to do with that.

The problem is that so many people are completely brainwashed. In the film Hijacking Catastrophe they talk about how the media sells the lie that the public so willingly swallows. People would have to be “decoded from the Bush propaganda” before they could hear the Truth.

But there is that twisted faction of aMErica that gets off on all of this madness. One of the speakers in the film, I think it was the author of the Bush Dyslexicon said that there are some people that get a “vicarious pleasure” from what is happening to Iraqi’s. Maybe if they saw some of the photos of Iraqi children with their limbs blown off or of their bodies burnt to the bone – horrific images that the media has been banned to show – they would get a sobering taste of what War is like (versus the sterilized version that the nightly news feeds them), and wake the fuck up!

The 2004 Nader t-shirt is black with a liberty bell on the front with the word Spoiler. There is a quote on the back that reads Revolutionaries always spoil corrupt systems. Who is going to rise up against this corruption and revolt with me and Nader?

*radical: of or going to the root or origin

from 08.Jun.2004 – Today concluded the class that i took at LCC – Nature, Religion and Ecology

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet – Albert Einstein

Eating is a sacred act. Food is love; our first primordial memory of our connection to our mother. The umbilicus of the earth mother provides us with lifelong nourishment. Many of us have forgotten this sacred connection – that we come from the land and are nourished by the land – and therefore we do not see the value in holding the earth in deep reverence.

The further removed we are from nature the less consciousness we have regarding food. In today’s world of fabricated foodstuffs, many people believe that what we eat comes from a nippled bottle, a box or a can. Paul Stitt, an outspoken food scientist, tells us in his book Fighting the Food Giants, that “An ever increasing proportion of the food we eat is no longer even food but is now a conglomerate of high-priced chemistry experiments designed to simulate food”.

A lack of consciousness in what we feed our bodies affects us on many levels. Vegetarianism and Organic Food, two issues that have significant impact on the earth, will be the primary focus of this discourse, with an attempt to convey the importance that our food choices have, both personally and globally. The discussion of dietary issues frequently generates friction and defensiveness in people. The goal here is not to create divisiveness or suggest the superiority of one diet over another, but to simply and necessarily further our knowledge of and give consideration to the effect that our food choices have in the world. The conversation will not be completely limited to the food that we put into our mouths however; expanding the definition to include what we feed our minds, in order to look at the intimate correlation that exists between the two.

To begin, a brief definition on what Vegetarianism and Organic Food mean since there is some confusion around these two terms: ie.; “I’m a vegetarian but I eat chicken and fish”.

There are different levels or types of vegetarianism: Veganism, Ova-lacto and Lacto, and Fruitarianism. In a Vegan diet there is strict avoidance of all animal products including honey, and sometimes the use of animal-derived products such as leather and silk. An ova-lacto vegetarian diet includes eggs and milk products, lacto vegetarianism includes dairy products, and a frutarian diet consists of only fruit, nuts, seeds and other plant matter that can be gathered without harming the plant. Therefore, in conclusion, vegetarianism excludes the eating of animal flesh; one cannot be a vegetarian and eat chicken or fish.

The term Organic has been misused, generally in an attempt to put a higher value on a product than it rightly deserves. To quote from The National Organic Standards Board: “The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.”

Those who choose vegetarian diets may do so or a variety of reasons but the two most common are opposition to the killing of animals and the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering, and because they consider meat to be unhealthy. The most frequently stated reason was that of ethical concern (67%) followed by health concerns (38%), spiritual and religious reasons (17%), and gustatory (taste) or aesthetic reasons (12%). A large proportion stated both ethical and health concerns (43%).

Many cultures have strict dietary rules that reflect their belief systems or religious views. Every major religion celebrates vegetarianism, though few adhere to it exclusively.

In India, the religious sect of Jainism is one exception. The Golden Rule in Jainism is ahimsa or nonviolence; with a deep compassion for all forms of life. Amar T. Salgia, founding member of Young Jains of America, says “Jainism is a momentous example to all of us that there can exist a successful, ecologically responsible way of life which is abundantly nonviolent in thought, action, and deed.”

Salgia tells us that “only one-sensed beings, primarily from the plant kingdom are consumed”. He answers a prime question oft times raised with regard to the moral issue of killing and eating animals versus plants, since both are living beings: “While the Jain diet does, of course, involve harm to plants and microorganisms, it is regarded as a means of survival which involves the bare minimum amount of violence towards living beings.” Salgia says that the practice of vegetarianism in Jainism is regarded as a potent instrument for the practice of nonviolence and peaceful, cooperative coexistence. Gandhi, though not a Jain, practiced the central tenet of this religion; ahimsa, and felt this to be the greatest virtue that a human being can possess; that it is the path to peace.

Hinduism does not espouse strict avoidance of meat, though most devout Hindus and certain castes abstain to protect the sacred cow, which they feel may be an ancestor from another lifetime. Vegetarianism became established in Hinduism because of the Buddhist emphasis on respect for life.

Buddhism incorporates vegetarianism into its philosophy, though not exclusively. The Chinese and Japanese (mostly Zen) followers of Buddhism are primarily, (some entirely) vegetarian while the majority of Tibetans consume meat on a regular basis. For those Buddhists who do follow a vegetarian path, ahimsa is the primary reason. The nineteenth-century Tibetan Lama Patrul Rinpoch, felt that the practice of meat eating violated the First Precept of Buddhism (no killing ~ reverence for life)) and that it was not in alignment with those who claim to practice bodhicitta (wisdom-seeking mind):

“The beings with unfortunate karma that we are supposed to be protecting are instead being killed without the slightest compassion, and their boiled flesh and blood are being presented to us and we—their protectors, the Bodhisattvas—then gobble it all up gleefully, smacking our lips. What could be worse than that?”

Within the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Religions there is a schism with regard to the eating of flesh. In Genesis 1:28 God says “… have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”, which sounds like the granting of permission for humans to use animals for their consumption. But in the next passage (Genesis1:29) God says, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat , and from Romans 14:20: Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of something to eat. , indications that a vegetarian diet was what God intended of humans.

According to the Essene New Testament, Jesus practiced and advocated a Fruitarian diet: God giveth the grains and the fruits of the earth for food; and for righteous man truly there is no other lawful sustenance for the body…. For God is just and bountiful who ordaineth that man shall live by the fruits and seeds of the earth alone.

From a religious standpoint, the practice of Vegetarianism is considered an important path to becoming a compassionate, loving and peaceful person. An equally compelling reason to adopt a meat-free diet is to help lessen the destructive environmental impact that such a diet produces.

John Robbins, heir to Baskin and Robbins, is one of the biggest proponents of a Vegetarianism/Vegan lifestyle. In his book Diet for a New America, Robbins makes many persuasive arguments for adopting a diet free of animal products, including: the mistreatment of animals, the health implications of eating meat and meat by-products that are laden with hormones, antibiotics, steroids and the element of fear when the animal is being led to slaughter, the amount of resources needed to produce meat versus non-meat foods, and the growing problem of soil erosion. From Robbins book May All Be Fed he tells us: “If Americans alone were to reduce meat consumption by only 10%, it would free land and resources to grow over 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption, more than enough to adequately feed every one of the 40 to 60 million human being who will starve to death on the planet this year.”

In summary, the arguments for adopting a vegetarian lifestyle are many but the most cogent is the issue of world hunger. How can we look into the eyes of a child dying of starvation (a child dies of starvation every two seconds) while justifying our consumption of meat?

If we chose a vegetarian diet, the question is what and how do we eat? Many fear that they will become protein deficient and malnourished if they deprive themselves of meat. It is true that there are many sickly vegetarians who have not discovered how to eat healthfully, and in their suffering they erroneously think that a lack of meat is the reason for this. Organically grown food is a vital component of a nourishing diet, which goes hand in hand with eating a diet of whole foods that have come from the earth versus foodstuffs manufactured in a factory.

Organic farming is the fastest growing sector of agriculture with approximately 2% of the U.S. food supply grown using organic methods. Over the past decade, sales of organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%. Today, more people than ever are opting for food that has not been grown with poisonous chemicals, even though the cost of organically grown food is more (due to intensive management and labor) than conventionally grown food. There is mounting evidence however, that if all the indirect costs of conventional food production were factored into the price of food (including the hidden costs of pesticide regulation and testing, hazardous waste disposal and cleanup) organic foods would cost the same, or, more likely, be cheaper than conventional food. An additional important consideration with regard to cost is the investment factor. We can choose to invest now and thereby enjoy better health and contribute to the preservation of the planet. Or we can ignore the benefits that an organic lifestyle offers and pay later with health problems and medical expenses.

The reasons to ‘Go Organic’ are as varied as those for choosing Vegetarianism, many of them overlapping. Mass scale conventional farming is destroying the planet at an alarming rate. North American farms are suffering from the worst soil erosion in history. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that (cancer causing) pesticides contaminate the ground water in 38 States, polluting the primary source of drinking water for more than half the country’s population. The average child receives four times more exposure than an adult to at least eight widely used cancer-causing pesticides in food. A National Cancer Institute study found that farmers exposed to herbicides had six times more risk than non-farmers of contracting cancer. Modern farming uses more petroleum than any other single industry, consuming 12% of the country’s total energy supply. It is estimated that North America has lost more than 650,000 family farms in the past decade; organic farming could be one of the few survival tactics left for family farms.

Perhaps there will need to be a profound shift in human consciousness, or a monumental calamity before we wake up and see the necessity to use organic farming methods and adopt dietary principles that do the least harm to the planet and to all other life forms. If we start with the idea of self-preservation, with the realization that we are made from the same elements as the earth and that our food comes from the earth, we can begin to cultivate a reverence for Mother Gaia, with the sincere desire to protect not poison her. Poisoning the Earth Mother with chemicals is the ultimate misogynistic insult, the equivalent of poisoning our own Mother.

To conclude, what we feed our minds has far reaching effects on the choices that we make in life, including our food choices. One of the most persuasive and destructive tools of the 20th century has been the advent of television. It’s viewers become passive consumers that are profitably brainwashed into believing everything they are being fed. Like anesthetized zombies they go to the supermarkets with the saturated advertising lingo and jingles in their brain and head straight for the foods and products they are promised will make them sexier, wealthier and more alluring. Television has proved to be one of the most effective tools for subduing the masses and perpetuating the grand capitalistic American scheme.

This primer only touches on the issues regarding the ethics of eating but it can help us to start looking at the impact that our food choices have. If we do as Brian Swimme suggests in his book The Universe is a Green Dragon and fall in love , to feel the magnetic pull of attraction to everything in the universe as sacred and divine, the desire to nurture and protect ourselves and all our relations will become as instinctual and effortless as breathing.

I cannot eat a cow
not necessarily because I think that it is my ancestor
but because when I look into her eyes
I see my own reflection.

homework for my nature, religion and ecology course; this is from a book report that i did on David Suzuki’s book “The Sacred Balance” from 04.Jun.2004

Love makes us human , says Suzuki in his final paragraph on The Law of Love from his book “The Sacred Balance”. Within this humanness resides the ability to love all species, to love all things of the world. Why then are we so hopelessly out of touch with the natural world and with the billions of other creatures that inhabit it? Why do we act as if we are the only sentient beings, the only species that matters? Where is the love?

We are made of the earth; and therefore we are the earth. Our bodies contain the same elements that the earth is composed of. Our first breath of Air begins our journey into the world, and each breath sustains us throughout our lives. The element Earth, from the rock and dirt of terra firm, creates the solid foundation of our body; our bones, our teeth, and our fatty tissue. Our blood and vital bodily fluids that flow through us are of the Water element, the same water that rains into our lives and waxes and wanes in the tides of the mighty oceans. From the Sun we carry Fire in our bellies, the oven where things are cooked, broken down and digested.

These same elements: Air, Earth, Water and Fire are the same elements that all species are created from. The bond between Planet Earth, Human Beings and All other Beings is unmistakably intertwined. We are one spirit.

In our myopic worldview we have put our own lives in peril but more importantly and tragically, we have contributed to the loss of 50,000 species a year, six species per hour! Suzuki tells us: “… the current extinction crisis is without precedent–never before has a single species been responsible for such a massive loss of diversity” . Humans are purportedly responsible for the elimination of 10-20 percent of all species that existed before we came into being. As one example of species loss, it is said that when the first European settlers arrived in the United States the continent was covered by an estimated 3.2 million km of forest. All but 220,000 km of the forests have been cleared in just 500 years time.

Yet, on some level we do have an innate appreciation for other life forms beyond our own. Despite our lust for sport events, Suzuki says that the number of people who visit zoos exceeds the number of visits to all sporting events combined. Many of us have pets that fill a very special role in our lives. We often make escapes to the woods, to the river and oceans, and to other places where nature’s tranquility can soothe and rejuvenate us. There is wisdom then that nature plays an imperative role in our lives.

However, there seems to be an erroneous and juvenile belief that nature will always provide for us, despite how we (mis)treat the earth. For many of us who live in industrialized societies, our bellies are full and we can shop with no dearth of selection or availability, so we think that all is well. And since we have largely lost our connection to nature we barely know or even care what is going on beyond our front door.

We seem to have a removed type of appreciation of nature; we’ve erected a wall between ourselves and the rest of the natural world – an “us and them” mentality. Suzuki proposes that this wall has caused a land of lonely, destructive and guilty people, one in which we are all struggling to bridge our isolation with community and committed connections. In this separation, from ourselves, from others and from the environment, we are inflicting harm, seemingly unconscious of the implications that it is causing. We harbor a schizophrenic conflict with little chance for enduring reconciliation without a meaningful and sincere desire to understand our connection to the divine, our connection to each other.

How is the human species different from the rest of the planet’s species? Suzuki tells us that it is related to our conscious brain, our ability to discern what is similar, different or repetitive. But according to the Hawaiian viewpoint, (as he later states) the entire world is alive, and all of nature possesses this consciousness with the ability to think and feel, which allows full interaction with human beings. Suzuki further argues that it is the ability of the human brain to create meaning, to find coherence in chaos, which may be our salvation from this spiraling entropy that we’ve set into motion with our lack of consciousness with regard to our interconnectedness, and our absolute dependence upon the earth.

The question begging for answers is: what can we do – both individually and collectively – to help restore the balance towards wholeness? The most immediate, meaningful and logical place to begin is to engage in a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. With the realization that our resources are not limitless and that once exhausted they are gone forever, we can begin to have a genuine gratitude and respect for nature for all that it provides. Suzuki suggests creating a hierarchy of needs, to look at what our basic necessities are, those things that we need and those things that we desire to make us happy. In doing this it is imperative to keep the needs of all others in mind too. To live simply so that others may simply live, an eloquent message from Gandhi, is what is required. In the end, it is love not possessions that have any lasting or tangible meaning.

One wonderful side effect of buying less is having more time! Consumption makes us a slave to work and imprisons us with the arduous task of care taking our possessions. With more time available to us we can simply sit and watch the effortless, graceful way that nature lives in accordance to the cycles and seasons of life. In this our reverence and appreciation will elevate us to a place of awe as we marvel at the vast and unimaginable wisdom that is inherent in all living breathing beings, human beings included. In this state of awe our love will grow and our wisdom will surface. And love is the path; love is the answer to the primary question of our time.

I first published this to Portland Indymedia on May 29, 2004. It received 88 responses, which is a remarkable response for that forum. I’ve included the original post here if you have any desire to read the comments that the story generated.

An update on the situation – my sister’s son (who did read this article) has just completed boot camp training. He will be shipped to Afghanistan sometime in the not too distant future.

* * *

I wonder how many families are dealing with this issue?

It’s a mother’s job to protect her children, to keep them out of harms way. A mother would never willfully send her son out into the world to kill others, nor allow her son to be killed. Yet, there are mothers willingly allowing this to happen when they hand their sons over to the military, or when they stand by silently when their sons declare that they are going to join the ranks of soldiers who have the job of killing.

For several weeks our caller ID had The United States Government’s local phone number on it. It was the armed forces calling for my son. I was appalled! I could not believe the nerve of them barging into our lives with their mendacious offer to help pay for my son’s education and then assist him in finding a job after school. That is the way that they slyly presented their bid for my son.

My daughter first talked with them. On the second call she asked who was calling and told them that she did not think that he would be interested. The recruiter commanded her to tell him who she was (their ordering of others never stops).

The calls came in quite regularly, several times per week, sometimes 2-3 times per day (they were zealous!) always when I was not at home. When I told my son about the phone calls, (who was not living her at the time), he just rolled his eyes and said “whatever”.

Finally, one day when I was at home, the United States Government lit up on the caller ID. I was so ready to give them a peace of my mind. The (young sounding) man on the other end of the phone asked to speak with my son. I told him that he was not here and asked what he wanted with him. He asked who I was (the audacity; he’s calling my home and asking me to identify myself!) I said “This is his mother”, in the most indignant voice I could muster.

The recruiter told me that he noticed that my son was in school (the school forced him to sign up for the ‘selective service’ when he enrolled in college in order to get financial aid) and that they could help him out with tuition and employment. I told him that he did not need any help from them. He said that he would like to talk with my son about that. Pretty dense he was, so I spelled it out for him clearly. “My son is not a fighter and he does not believe in War!” A bit of a pause and then a polite, “well, thank you for that information”. That was the last of the phone calls.

My sister is facing the military dilemma with her 17 year-old son right now. She is vehemently against him becoming a soldier; despite his insistence on enlisting. But her son has been wanting to, along with a lot of other brainwashed youngsters, since 9.11.

In one month’s time, when he turns 18 and is flung into the arms of freedom, he intends to head straight to the recruiting office and sign his life away. He’ll not be a newcomer to them though; he’s been frequenting the office with a kind of fanatical obsession for a while now, hanging out with the military boys getting his head pumped full of adrenaline and stories. According to my sister his “wild-eyed” fixation is growing in intensity.

My sister finally spoke with a military recruiting officer (after refusing the calls that her son kept insisting she take) who told her that it is his job to help young men enlist and that once he turns 18 he has the freedom to do what he wants, despite what her wishes and feelings are. What an arrogant remark! A mother raises her son for 18 years, and then along comes this virtual stranger who is basically telling her that he is going to take her son from her.

Unfortunately, her son has solicited the support of many others who are standing in his favor. He talked with his grandfather (our father) a marine, who, despite his own (newly) negative feelings re Iraq, only fueled the boy’s obsession when he told him his own story of enlisting without talking with his parents first, who were later upset to learn of his plans. He also said that we’ve lost more than 500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, but that there were over 800 young men killed in motor vehicle accidents in their home state last year. Dear dad, there’s just no comparison here, and your numbers are wrong; the casualties (to date) in Iraq is actually at 800 not 500.

One of the boy’s teachers is also involved. Since when does the public school system have the right to get involved with politics? This teacher called my sister and asked her to come to a school meeting between herself, the recruiter, my sister’s son and my sister, “to mediate”. Sounds like a gang up session to me. She refused the meeting.

Today my sister called me and told me the latest about this whole situation. Fortunately, I went through this with my son when he was quite young, about 8 or 9. He really wanted to fly fighter jets announcing to us that he’d be joining the Air Force when he was old enough. I told him Over my dead body.

One day he said that he wanted to join the Boy Scouts. So his father accompanied him to a meeting that was being held at the school. During the talk they passed around the magazine “Boy’s Life”, a rag for the scouts. My son was pretty angered when he came home afterwards because his dad told him that he would not give his permission to join. After perusing the magazine and finding it full of military ads, he realized that the Boy Scouts was just laying the foundation for these young impressionable boys, and he, who starved himself until he was unfit to serve when his number came up in the lottery during the Vietnam War draft, was not going to support that.

Somewhere along the road, perhaps with our strong views and alternative lifestyle, our son dropped the whole notion and is now as anti-war as his dad. In fact, he says that if the draft is reinstated he’s off to Canada. But in December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. So, perhaps Mexico?

Right now, my sister is facing a tough issue. She asked her son if they could talk, but he is growing more resistant to anything that she has to say and is turning away from her, snidely asking her what kind of a mom she is to not support him (especailly when everyone else is). So, at this point, she feels that there is nothing left to do but let him live his life as he chooses, even if she feels it is the biggest mistake he could make.

On the positive side, she has two younger daughters who despise Bush. A few weeks ago his canvassing caravan went through their tiny conservative Midwest town. The kids were all told to “come to school dressed in red, white and blue, despite their political views”. Her 11 year old refused instead dressing in Black, from head to toe! Her seven year old wore brown and white stripes, instead of red and white.

Joan Armatrading’s song If Women Ruled the World has been going through my head today”

Not all men kill babies
But a woman would rather
Kill herself
Than see a child suffer

Like mother nature feeds the world
A woman will think of her child first
No more sons dying young
Women bore sons for living

* * *

And from the 1920′s song: I Didn’t Raise My Son To Be A Soldier

I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
I raised him up to be my pride and joy
Why should he put a musket to his shoulder
To kill another mother’s darling boy
Why should he fight in someone else’s quarrels
It’s time to throw the sword and gun away
There would be no war today
If the nations all would say
No I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
To go fighting in some far-off foreign land
He may get killed before he’s any older
For a cause that he will never understand
Why should he fight another rich man’s battle
While they stay at home and while their time away
Let those with most to lose
Fight each other if they choose
For I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
To go fighting heathens round the Horn
If God required to prove that boys are bolder
They’d have uniforms and guns when they were born
Why should we have wars about religion
When Jesus came to teach us not to kill
Do Zulus and Hindoos
Not have the right to choose
For I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier
I raised him up to be a gentleman
To find a sweet young girl and love and hold her
Bring me some grandchildren when they can
Why can’t we decide that the Empire
Is just as large as it requires to be
And I’d rather lose it all
Than to see my laddie fall
For I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier

third in a series of essays for my nature, religion and ecology course from 28.May.2004

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money. — Cree Indian Proverb

Profit is the motivating force behind the mass destruction of our Mother Earth. We see her as a commodity to use as we please, with no intelligence as to the dire consequences that such shortsighted greed produces.

In protest of the corporate machine and in defense of Mother Gaia, the number of ecoactivists speaking up and acting out is on the rise. One such group, Greenpeace, founded in 1971 with the mission to bear witness to the destruction of nuclear weapons, has grown to be the largest environmental movement in the world; 2.5 million members (worldwide) strong. The initial focus of Greenpeace was ecology and peace, though environmental issues top their list of concerns today. The group uses nonviolent direct action and creative communication against “industrial, national and political forces that are bent on destroying the planet’s ecological viability.”

Greenpeace incorporates Quaker philosophy into their activities – bearing witness to injustice in a nonviolent way. The Quaker tradition teaches that to “stand by and watch injustice taking place without protesting in some fashion is to implicate oneself in that injustice”.

Greenpeace’s website lists their six major projects including: saving ancient forests, stopping global warming, eliminating persistent organic pollutants (POPs), protecting the oceans, eliminating the threat of genetic engineering, and ending the nuclear age.

There is power in numbers so groups like Greenpeace are of paramount importance though some people feel that if the numerous environmental groups joined hands and united to form one massive movement, mobilizing their energy, funding, efforts and power, the movement as a whole would meet with increased success.

The latest in Greenpeace’s victories in a case “Bush vs. Greenpeace”, is their triumph over their right to engage in civil disobedience in protest against environmental abuses. Bush and Ashcroft tried stifling the voice of Greenpeace by using an archaic law to shut the organization down. It was overruled and thrown out as unconstitutional.

While many ecological activists feel that the human species is a parasitic threat to the earth that is best eradicated before the planet succumbs to our self-indulgent and arrogant behaviors, one ecovisionary vehemently disagrees with this notion. Murray Bookchin, a veteran of environmental issues that began his career in activism in 1952 out of his concerns for pollution, shares Greenpeace’s philosophy that the ecological crisis is a monster of the corporations. He feels that it is the individuals of such corporations not the entire human race that is responsible for the destruction of the earth.

With Bookchin’s belief that environmental problems are largely social, ethical and moral in nature, he feels that the real issue begging to be addressed is our social development, beginning with the domination of humans over other humans, which then carries over to the exploitation and domination of the natural world. Bookchin feels that it is important to determine which societies are anti-nature, since not all abuse it.

A capitalist society such as ours breeds competition where one’s worth is measured by their success and their monetary wealth, a system that needs to be toppled and replaced with an anarchist one where people meet on issues in a face-to-face format, disallowing the corporate giants to hide and cower behind closed doors.

Returning to pretechnological times, in Bookchin’s opinion, is a romantized idea with no basis in reality, since he does not see technology, science nor civilization as the problem.

The domination of the planet is in the hands of a tightening number of corporations who want to control everything. It is of utmost importance that we all rise up and join hands with the movement towards restoring balance to the earth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.