Part 3 of “corona exposes” shows that we lived blindly a particular reality as if it were the only one. Many people, once at home due to the lockdown, forcefully adjusting their lifestyle to a new reality, started to see its benefits. Our collective eyes were opened. Of course many suffered and still suffer the economic consequences as their money dependent activities froze or even disappeared. It is hard to accept that such income and occupancy was purely related to one way of structuring our reality. When this broke apart the activities disappeared while others appeared within the societal importance that arose due to the alleged virus attack and need to attend the many flaws of the old reality within producing human resilience and comfort. A new reality (maybe even more then one) manifests itself, ready to be filled in by new human engagement and structuring.
To illustrate our collective blindness and sudden lifechanging awareness breakthroughs, I use this image. And I ask you “what do you see?”
Most people see a set of squares, with a certain depth due to its design. What most people don’t see are the 16 circles. Can you see them? If you do not you may even declare me crazy, making fun of you, looking at me in disbelief. Circles? That is because the circle reality is not yet part of your truth. And it is hard, if not impossible to accept someone else’s truth that you cannot perceive. There is no reason to “believe” me since there is no promise for a better life to do so, it is just an open invitation to have a more open look and maybe accept my guidance until you capture the new image. Not many accept this invitation (why should I? No need! No time! No patience. No inner curiosity?) if their reality is hooked onto the world of squares, not circles.
This is what happens when I ask people to open up to the reality of Sustainocracy, a society in which human wellness and resilience is leading, not money or political power. Most people ignore me, they don’t even perceive my invitation, because they are fully absorbed into the perception in their single reality. Those who do accept can go through a process of curiosity up to a point of engagement. For those that engage it is not a choice between the squares or circles, it is accepting a reality in which both are present and taking their benefit.
Corona opened up the eyes of many that the old reality may be limited and even potentially damaging. The new reality was often not yet clear, just like the world of circles in the pictures. We may have heard that they exist and now open up to looking broader. Others see the broader picture and start adjusting already.
For me my world changed in 1996 when I had to make very powerful choices. Entirely new dimensions of life reveiled themselves to me. My life has never been the same ever since. Yet I cannot blame others not to see what I see, or behave the way I do. Gradually, over the years more joined me in the new resonance. Now corona pushed even more over the line of awareness.
For those of you still looking at the squares and wanting to see the circles. Just concentrate on the little vertical lines between the squares. The circles will reveil themselves once you relax in the focus on the vertical lines.
In part 1 we looked briefly at the incompatibility of the democratic political hierarchies to take proactive responsability for human values. Part 2 exposes not just the focus on money and our overall dependence. Corona exposed the useless, destructive productivity for the sake of financial benefit instead of human resilience.
The definition of governance is: the action or manner of governing a state or organization, etc.
This definition already introduces an objective. What is governing all about? If we look at the way governance evolved over time than we see that is was based creating infrastructure (harbors, roads, logistics) and the aggression of taking (confiscation, plundering, warfare, trade, taxing etc) from others in order to sustain itself. Meanwhile it made use of available human resources through for instance “obedience against food and residence”. Those who were not part of the system would wonder around and try to survive in no-mans land.
Our history has not been peaceful at all. Our wellbeing had been a constant timeline of confrontations and human dominance over others. When industralization developed the popularility of money increased as a means for trade, investment, bribe and employment. The aspect of money became leading for all elements of society, citizens and institutions alike.
For governance the origin of money could at first be self made against a valuable colatoral such as gold. But when the thirst for more money became larger the colatoral changed to different means. Tax increases and debt against time for instance. Also the technique of speculation (artificial price increases due to the politics of creating shortages) introduced itself. While previously greed, self interest and needs for resources were dealt with through aggression against others, now the aggression could extend itself to ones own population by establishing the push for taxed labor, creating shortages to raise prices, allowing debt over future income to impose social controls, etc.
What are we willing to sacrifice if money is our goal?
At individual level we grew blind of moral. We consume articles produced by child labor, because it is cheap. We dump our trash in nature because it is easy. We accept money dominance because without it we cannot have access to the goods around us.
At institutional level we focus on our reason to be, not the consequences of our activities. We produce where it is cheapest, trade across the world, use planetary resources for our processes and don’t worry about pollution, labor abuse, etc as long as we satisfy our shareholders.
At government level we need increasing cash to deal with the consequences of our societal activities. We see costs rise again ailing income. Even the noblest of government cannot deal with the fragmented self interests and public apathy. Regulation is costly and so is aftercare, on top of the old infrastructural responsabilities to keep this type of destructive economy going. Government is forced to be tolerant in order to stay in force but needs to take actions to balance the economy of the taking and giving. Economy of growth is seen as only path forward but it only increases the consequences to unsustainable levels.
The financial crisis in 2008 showed the level of greed and made us loose faith in the banking systems. Instead of taking benefit of the crisis to introduce impactful change capital injections went into the system to save it. Then, 12 years later, COVID19 appears….again they try to save the system with capital injections, the introduction controls and focus on system instruments such aa vaccins. Corona exposes leadership as one track minded management networked globally in an ancient trap of abuse.
During corona lockdown the reality dawned on us. The mass production economy is based on useless, destructive processes. They stopped during lockdown and in just a few weeks both nature and people recovered health positively to the elimination of unnecessary destructiveness. We became aware of the true economy, seen as a cost yet the only one producing real value: care for health. People started crying out for the “new normal”, the appreciation of true value and care for eachother. A new normal that is opposite from what we evolved into over time. We need to let go the obsolete destructiveness and start structuring our resilience together among people and nature. A new type of governance and economy arises.
We are probably experiencing the biggest awareness breakthrough in history of humankind.
The democratic political hierarchy exposed
Words such as politics, economy, power, responsability, sustainability, etc have a meaning. This meaning varies depending of context in which they are placed.
There is a thin line between being servent to the prosperity and wellness of a community and being servant to oneself at expense of it all. With corona these lines were crossed, back and forth, exposing “this system” in all its weaknesses. Part 4 will talk about strengthening our society placing the words and actions in proper context? For now we have to deal with the weaknesses and its consequences.
One of the relevant definitions of “politics” is: the activities aimed at improving someone’s status or increasing power within an organization. When we organize such politics in societal context, using groupings called “political parties”, then the definition refers to improving the group’s status and power in society. In a democratic setting such parties defend certain interests to gain sufficient votes to get into the front seats of conducting society.
Once in these seats the promises and reality become secondary to sustaining the groups power in the seat or even getting better seats. It is a popular saying that “power corrupts”. The thin line between the original ideals that got one into the seat and the manipulation needed to remain in that seat, once confronted with the broader spectrum of dealing with societal responsibility, is easily crossed. Within a normal democracy one can be blamed for one’s actions in a driver’s seat and loose power. But corona was not normal taking those in power into abnormal choices. How do you justify such abnormal choices, such as a lockdown and still remain favorite in the political arena?
The definition of “responsibility” found is: the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or having control over someone.
The “duty” or “control” aspects are easily confused if one deals with self and community interests. Especially when the practice of “responsibility” is combined with “politics”. The definition of politics shows the existance of a hierarchy in whichs duties and controls are mixed. People in power suddenly sense many responsibilities, such as satisfying the party, the electorat, themselves and especially trying to avoid being blamed of not complying. True leadership responsibility, the one of justified change, is avoided simply because “change is never popular”. That is one of the reasons why politically chosen governments hardly truly introduce change, they stick to “the normal”, maybe taking inpopular measures of cost reductions or tax increases that affect (large) minorities, but never restructuring society based on new formats, unless …..
Unless of course a crisis upsets everything. The common reaction then is not for change but more control.
Often such crises can be avoided if governance were not so risk avoiding in their decision making, mainly based on their blinding fear of losing their popularity and positions of power. Political oppositions tend to criticize litterly everything of people in power but hardly introduce alternatives themselves out of the equivalent fear of failing.
Corona is a crisis. The questions are:
- “could it have been avoided?”
- “are we dealing properly with the crisis?”
- “are we willing to transform society if needed?”
In between conclusion
If we consider the current democratic political system of risk avoidance and fear of losing, then we can conclude that it is not at all geared at proactive avoidance, or change, or resilience through permanent change. It is focused mainly on control and “finding the proper explanation, no matter what”, even at the expense of ethics and morality. The system has exposed its weaknesses, not just at the level of driver’s seats but also the blindness of the masses who made (lured into, forced into, voluntarily accepted, reluctantly sat back, never even thought about it, etc) themselves dependent. In essence “fear” and “control” in all layers of society is predominantly present, justifying all decisions (red cloud in the picture of human complexities).