"Fight" vs. "Work toward"

No, this isn't about union activity or the alternatives, warfare vs. peacetime employment -- although, wow, is there a connection!

It's about the peculiar quandary common among human beings: It's easier to destroy than to create.

For the same reason, it's easier to criticize than to actualize
and easier to resist than to take initiative.

In this time period so ripe with reasons to condemn, the line of less resistance is resistance, not taking creative initiative, breaking down without also building anew. It is a self-destructive and incompetent mood.

The problem is, for many it's easier to destroy what's remembered than to imagine something better, to break down, to destroy than to bring into existence and develop. That's why there's a special term, "entrepreneur".

Remembering is generally more or less under our control; imagining requires an unpredictable emergence of insight in the one doing the imagining. Otherwise, it tends just to be a reworking of something remembered -- like remakes of classic movies. We can't force imagining, or at least, it isn't commonly as easy to imagine as to remember.

Rare, more functionally-awake and balanced individuals (sometimes known as "visionaries") have good imagination and good memory, good attention span, and coherent intention.

We can cultivate those faculties. It just takes the well-focused means, the interest, our remembering to practice, and application of deliberate intention when doing it. It's called, "education" -- but a more basic and fundamental education than is publicly practiced, these days. It's the education that prepares one for education. More, below.

Because it is easier to break things down than to improve things (which takes imagination and diligence), breaking things down is the course often taken. This is what happened in the last Presidential election. The political system wasn't working well for a large enough number of people, so they chose someone who would create change -- some kind of change, any kind of change -- to the political system of The United States of America.

However, they chose badly.  The political parties chose badly. They chose someone who defines "great" as, "someone who can boss others around" (rather than someone who brings the greatest good to the greatest number). They chose someone who thinks like a cutthroat business man -- anything, as long as it's legally defensible, and he can get the law changed, if need be. Anything for which he has executive authority -- without accountability to the people of the nation. They chose someone for whom "ethics" is an irrelevancy, "truth" an embarrassment, and the Constitution and intentions of the structure of the Federal Government, an inconvenience to be gotten around or done away with.

They chose badly. The man makes money in real estate and golf courses. Did his electors think that because of his election, they would end up owning real estate and play golf at country clubs? Is that what they envisioned? I doubt it. I don't think they considered it that far. They didn't choose someone who is likely to give them what they feel they need.

The logic rather witlessly followed was, "First we break the political system down, and then somehow it will turn out better." Really haphazard. The rebuild stage wasn't carefully considered, if at all -- hence, the behavior demonstrated an unconscious and not particularly intelligent logic. Thus, lazy-minded, simplistic, gullible individuals elected a would-be Big Shot who may never feel big enough and who has an awful lot of power in his hands. "Gullible" means, "those to whom it never occurs to exercise their intelligence for themselves, but just to accept what they're told." Otherwise, they would have seen the abundant signs he displayed before the election.

When such people want change, they can easily be, and were, convinced to tear down without equal care for building up. This, of course, demonstrates a tempermentally childish stage of development; it breaks its toys when it wants new ones -- and it's not responsible for getting, or creating, the new ones.

This is not an adolescent or adult stage of development; adolescents are all about creating themselves, anew (although in conformity to their group), and adults are about creating, maintaining and enhancing; adults are both conservative and progressive. That's adult. "Tear down" mediocrity is spoiled-childish, undeveloped, self-indulgent, irresponsible, and undisciplined. Take that kind of behavior far enough, we call it ..... criminal.

This kind of description is not destroying or fighting; it's just naming and explaining with a high degree of precision and accuracy. If these seem like fighting words, it because they hit home with precision and accuracy (and without collateral damage).


So often, in the public vernacular -- the way things are commonly said -- we are told to "fight" this and "fight" that. It's considered a compliment to call someone, "a fighter". "Fighter" is a term with a sense of ongoing embattlement. They don't say, "a visionary" or "a hero", or even, "a great leader"; they say, "a fighter." It's a lower form of compliment.

In the public vernacular, people who participated in bringing about change used to be called, "liberals" and "progressives". The terms have been made derogatory by the sneer which which "Regressives/Conservatives" have used the term. Progressives seldom use the words, "liberal" or "progressive", to describe themselves in public rhetoric (except sometimes during election season); only "Regressives", so-called Conservatives, use the words, "Progressive" and "Liberal" -- and that, in a pejorative (put-down) sense to excuse their reactionary behavior.

Progressives/Liberals need to take back the terms and make them have the honorable meaning they warrant. They should also stop referring to the Republican Party as the "GOP" (Grand Old Party); it ain't grand anymore and it's been taken over by clever individuals who are there for the wrong reasons -- the right reason being public service. The foxes are in the henhouse, folks. Old Lady O'Leary's cow has kicked over the lantern.

A way of saying something reflects upon the one saying it; what someone says is an extension of them. To make the terms, "Progressive" and "Liberal", into smears reflects upon the one saying them: They would never be caught dead creating something better for the greatest number of people or being protective of those who need protection, or looking out for the population they serve, other than in terms of money, i.e., "jobs". Nooooo. They need to look out for themselves and for their position in the power heirarchy that sustains their in-office gravy train. It's for such people that the saying, "Kick the bums out!" was coined. Unfortunately, the electorate put the bums in. Gullible.

Making, "Progressive", a smear-term shows, about the speaker, a certain backwardness and unwillingness to take responsibility for bringing forth the greatest good for the greatest number. They are rebellious against the adult demand to take care of and share with others, to keep their word, to honor the oaths they, themselves, took. They have another agenda. They don't "play nicely". This, of course, is the behavior of spoiled children: "Conservatives". . . . . anti-progressive anti-evolutionaries. Regressives. Arrested development. Immature.

Regressives use the word, fight; Progressives also use the word, "fight". It shows how the so-called, "Pro-gressives", are not that much different from the Re-gressives. A greater difference would exist if Progressives used the phrases, "working for" or "working on" something ..... working on something instead of fighting for, or fighting, something.

The same goes for the word, "resist'. Instead, persist, or even advance, as in, "We're advancing a new public education funding program."

Of course, Regressives would resist such a program. Education of the public works against their interests. They don't want a population for whom attention, memory, imagination and intention are on-line at a high level; they don't want to be found out by people who are competent. They want a controllable population.

To show, by contrast, how far they have strayed from the original vision of this nation, the following declaration by Thomas Jefferson can be read on a plaque above one of the entrances to the House of Representatives:

"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation
an educated electorate."

"Work for" is the best welfare system. Awakening your imagination and linking it with what you know and what things there are to work with goes beyond protest and resistance. It goes beyond Regressiveness and beyond the resistance of Regressiveness. It is the ultimate non-violent act: creative transgression of the preferences those who would create a meaner nation.

And that means defeating those who, like the Koch Brothers, defeated wind-power in Massachusetts, defeat publicly beneficial projects in order to preserve or enhance their own standing in the wealth/power structure. We defeat them through persistent support of those who make such advances until those who resist are defeated, and we defeat them by educating ourselves so that we become the creators and holders of value.

Take notice of the speech patterns, "Fight" or "Work toward", and be informed.
There. Now I've said it.

The Basic Education
search term: "TetraSeed"

The Likenesses of Well-Known
Transformational Teachings
and The Gold Key Release

The Gold Key Release

copyright 2017 Lawrence Gold

No comments:

Post a Comment