Just To Clarify

Apparently, I'm 'very political'..

That's a very strange thing to me. Obviously it is a strong perception that people have of me, that I am political, even too political. It's strange, because honestly, I absolutely loathe and detest politics, politicians and political parties. I have zero interest in getting mixed up in all that shit, ever.

Folks, I hate to burst your bubble (not) but I am apolitical.  In the Oxford English dictionary, political is defined as 'relating to the government or public affairs of a country'. Sure, often I am concerned with the evils perpetrated by governments, and yes sometimes my views are UK-centric, but my concerns are global and my focus is on the whole of humanity. Any link with established political views, party or otherwise, is just pure coincidence. I actively fight against the inbuilt bias that arises from my geographic and societal boundaries. The internal party politics of any one particular country is so far from my area of interest it's almost invisible to me.

Our esteemed Oxford dictionary defines apolitical as 'not interested or involved in politics'. That's me. Just because I post meme's and react to news items on social media, and sign the odd petition, doesn't mean I'm interested in a career in parliament. It's just not on my radar. I'm encouraged by the fact that for every one person who doesn't like my posts, I've had compliments from four or five. It's not necessary, but it sure raises the spirit.

One of the most common reasons why people label you 'political' is so that they can dismiss anything you say that they don't agree with, find uncomfortable or challenging, or otherwise don't want to acknowledge. When something rattles me, I feel compelled to express my views (sorry, not sorry). These views develop in response to an ongoing and ever-expanding awareness of the bigger picture, the issues that I believe to be fundamental ills and wrongs in the world. It is merely a part of the picture that the responsibility for these wrongs nearly always lies with politicians, their paymasters in big business and their co-conspirators in mainstream media. I am constantly engaged in a process (again, always developing) of identifying sources, fact-checking, cross-referencing, analysing, evaluating and finally sharing and/or debating these matters. I don't just shoot from the hip. I discard far, far more ideas than I share, because they do not hold up to scrutiny.

What concerns me greatly, even scares me, is the masses of people who turn off and just shut down, the moment anything they are hearing or seeing can be construed as (too) political in some way. Elections are won by morons with evil ideas because people are so apathetic they can't even be bothered to vote, and the most common reasons people give are, "well I just don't understand it all", or simply, "I don't do politics". Oh the irony. We all have a vested interest in learning at least the basic mechanisms with which politicians and political parties influence and govern people. Everything you hold dear in life and the future of you and your family depends on what these self-serving single-minded lying scumbags do. It's all about awareness.

Time and time again I find myself being doubted, questioned, derided and even excluded for my opinions. In the past it has pained me, I still have occasional moments when it bothers me, but those moments are getting fewer and further between. It's all about having the courage of your convictions. You have to do the self-awareness work it takes to stay open-minded whilst being assertive about your stance, establishing and maintaining healthy checks and balances on your reasoning, and above all, always revising and allowing changes to your mindset when new information presents itself.

So I'm apolitical. Unapologetically, unabashedly, unreservedly so.

Is that too political for you?

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Not Broken

When you see someone smiling, getting on with their job or whatever, seeming content, how do you really know that they're okay? Do you take on face value how that person comes across? Do you find yourself wondering how they do it? How they maintain their repose even in really stressful situations? Do you maybe even feel a hint of envy on some level that they have it so apparently easy, or that they handle life so well?

Well, I have to tell you, don't do that..

Nobody has it easy.

Take the most relaxed, calm, agreeable person you know. You don't know what depths of hell they might have plumbed before they arrived at a point where they could be at peace with life. How about the strong, dependable, kind and funny person you love to be around? Hard to imagine them at the bottom of a bottle and wasted on drugs, a hopeless, selfish, destructive addict, for years on end. What of the single mother you know and see as a perfect role model, dedicated, selfless and nurturing with every ounce of her being - worlds apart from the suffocation of the abusive, oppressive, authoritarian parents she had to endure.

Think about everyone you know, everyone you meet and everyone you know of. How many of them would you say are really okay? What exactly is okay anyway? Normal? Then, what exactly is normal?

Many people equate normality with being happy. I hate to break it to them, but happy is not normal. It's simply not a normal human state of mind. Happiness comes in fits and starts. It's a nice meal, a crafty smoke, an orgasm. Happy is a fleeting and temporary emotion, and those who think they can live life in a perpetual state of happiness are deluded. Worse, those who constantly pursue this state of mind are heavily prone to falling. That path is littered with the unavoidable traps of habituation, addiction and obsession, and its destination is the mirror opposite of anything good.

We've been brainwashed by a mono-culture, born of a profoundly sick society, that holds that anyone who isn't 'happy' has something fundamentally wrong with them. They must not be making enough 'effort' in life, not putting in enough 'work'. They do not fit into the illusion of a perfect life that society has deemed acceptable, an illusion manufactured with the sole purpose of making people feel inadequate in the first place purely so that they'll buy stuff they don't really need to try to feel better.

I'm here to tell you it is okay to be not okay. It's not only okay, it's far healthier than pretending otherwise. Everyone has their cross to bare. The trick is to do it with some grace and style, if you can, and if you can't, seek help, find support and learn how to change the way you are thinking about all of this. It's a long and difficult road, but the journey teaches you more than you ever thought possible.

Unusually for this blog, I decided to end on a poem which I wrote the other week, if you'll indulge me..

How do you fix what is not broken?
When you think your latest foolish notion
Is some groundbreaking observation
As it provides you with false elation,
Carries you along on its high ride,
Until you hit the flip side,
Surfing sudden strong waves incoming on the tide
To arrive at the dark island where you hide.

Temporary solace can be found there,
You can wallow in apathy, pretend you don't care,
But sooner or later reality will start biting.
You either collapse or come out fighting,
The fight is like trying to reach the ceiling
Of the fleeting feelings that gave you meaning,
Whilst reeling from an invisible attack
By the blackness of thoughts held back.

"If it ain't broke don't try to fix it" they say,
But you found the exception to the rule today,
By stumbling through darkness you found a light,
Extracting insight from the forces that blight.
The road less travelled reveals so much more,
It shows you what the pain is really all for,
It's worth years of tears for the wisdom you get
And the peace of a life free from fear of regret.

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Keeping It Real

So, are you a 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' kind of person?

That old cliché attempts to classify people into one of two camps, the half full glasses of the optimists or the half empty vessels of the pessimists. But what if you are neither? Too often we seek to oversimplify that which is deeply complicated, but conversely, we need a measure of simplicity in order to understand and make sense of the otherwise complex nature of things.

What we are talking about here is fundamental to how we view ourselves and our place in the world, and also how we view others around us. By extension, the optimist versus pessimist debate is another example of 'black and white' thinking. We probably all know people who would call themselves optimists. We may even concur that they do indeed generally possess a positive worldview and seem to look for the best in any given situation. Pessimists are far less likely to identify themselves as such, but I can almost guarantee you can think of someone you know who you might be tempted to label as negative in their outlook. Someone who often fails to see the good in things, and for whom there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel.

My contention is that you cannot realistically divide people into one of these two 'black and white' camps without ignoring the shades of grey in between. Thankfully I am not alone in my musings. Among other insights, a random google search brought me to this page. There are some interesting variations on the theme here:

• Kate Brown - "We need to quit arguing about whether the glass is half full or half empty - and instead acknowledge that there's not quite enough water to go round."
• Scott Stossel - "There are lots of things, including changing the kind of inner dialog, that can mitigate anxiety. And yes, there are people who have the glass half full and glass half empty, and I'm afraid the glass is going to break and I'll cut myself on the shards."
• Brad Thor - "If we talk about the glass being half empty or half full, I want to know what does the glass look like from underneath the table?"

Sometimes I can relate to the optimists, with their half filled glasses, but unfortunately I have found that rose-coloured spectacles simply do not suit me. Sometimes I sympathise with the pessimists point of view. Whether due to a string of disappointments in life, or one big letdown, they have chosen to be negative. There's a weird kind of comfort in that. For a while. Ultimately though, and in spite of misery loving company so much, I have neither found that there is anything to gain from negativity, nor do I get along in the long term with those whose glasses are half empty.

If we have a fixed view of ourselves and our place in the world, and indeed of others and their place, aren't we basically stuck? The world changes every single day, sometimes more than once in a twenty-four hour period. There is good, and bad, and everything in between, going on all the time. If we choose to fix our minds into a rigid way of viewing our lives and the people in it, surely we are engaging in a destructive act of self-sabotage? Our flexibility and propensity to handle change, our ability to adjust according to our needs and the needs of others, our capacity for revising our thinking when we are in the wrong, our means of attaining and maintaining good judgment, our potential to challenge ourselves, all these skills and more effectively become shut down when we get stuck.

So, at this point in life, if forced to define myself in simplistic terms, I am a realist. The glass is neither half full nor half empty. It's just a glass. I hadn't really bothered to examine this further until recently, but during my latest reading I did find a couple of images that stood out for me..

You see, it's not all good being a realist. Life has taught me that one of the greatest skills you can possess is dedication to reality, at all costs. I am always trying to live up to this, but it has a big downside. The reality of the taxing and difficult situations the world presents us with can often be bleak, unpalatable and potentially very depressing. It is easier to forgo the effort and discomfort, and more often than not, do the hard work and accept the pain it takes to overcome something personally difficult, or to assimilate some bad news, or to accept something we find patently horrible, purely for the sake of avoiding the difficulty of dealing with it. But each and every time we avoid this legitimate and necessary suffering, no matter how seemingly insignificant we might deduce it to be, we increase our inherent ignorance, expand our prejudices and faulty presumptions, further close our minds and hearts, and essentially magnify the power of natural entropy that lies within us.

When an optimist is faced with one such situation they will inevitably find solace in some throwaway comment or thought, "well, such is life." This is all well and good, as long as the baby doesn't drown in the sewer as it gets flushed away with the bathwater, which happens all too often. 'Blind optimism' is an occupational hazard when your glass is always half full. In exactly the same way, the pessimist will be so busy with their conviction that "life's a bitch and then you die", they'll fail to notice that not everyone is a bitch. When they reach the light at the end of the particular tunnel they are busy travelling down, their response is simply, "great, now I'm blinded by that fucking light."

Never one to rest on my laurels, comfort is something that is regularly extremely hard for me to find. That's fine. I choose to be a realist, and all that comes with it. I choose to be fully conscious of all shades of life, the good, the bad and the ugly. I choose to see the world and the people in it through a prism of self-awareness and empathy. To me, these are both qualities that require constant learning and practice. No one has them in spades. Sure, some people have a greater or lesser propensity for them, but if one practices self-awareness daily, using the many tools available to learn from books and on websites, even totally lost souls can eventually establish these healthy checks and balances on their thinking. Likewise with empathy, if we choose to open up to the feelings and suffering of others, in all it's depths, our hearts can grow less cold and we can enable a much healthier mindset, in which the seeds of positive change might grow.

So that's where I'm at. It's a matter of perspective, I guess. My preference for science and reason probably drew me to the second image, and to conclude, for now, that my glass is completely full.

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Tin Foil Hats

Important note: I did not write this. I found it among some articles I had saved on an old hard drive the other day. Sadly I never recorded the source. If anyone can identify it I would be grateful, and will of course be happy to credit the writer, or remove it from my blog if they so wish. I just felt it was too good a piece to leave languishing in my archives.

Most people can’t resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue … and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous.

Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy. USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair. When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive? What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”? When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls? “I own a small business and am in town for a short while. Oh yeah, you look beautiful.

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. To conspire means “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end.” The term “conspiracy theory” is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from “the people”.

To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature. Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly we can all agree on this. So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding. Or am I

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical. This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for “hit pieces” or “debunking articles” to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11. They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the “final investigation” for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words “kool-aid,” “crack pot,” or “nut job” in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an “expert” who will say something along the lines of, “for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. It’s just not conceivable.”

I find it extremely odd that the assumption is on thousands of participants in a conspiracy. I, for one, find it hard to believe any conspiracy involving more than a handful of people but the fact remains that there have been conspiracies in our world, proven and not made up, that involved many hundreds of people. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don’t you find it odd when people use one of those as the “credible” counter-argument? What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn’t seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesn’t this seem odd to anybody else but me??

While intelligent cynicism certainly can be healthy, though, some of the greatest discoveries of all time were initially received (often with great vitriol) as blasphemous conspiracy theories — think of the revelation that the earth was not the center of the universe, or that the world was not flat but actually round.

The Stupidity Of Deception

Yesterday the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley (read Hatey) said of the decision to pull out of the United Nations Human Rights Council, "the body is hypocritical and self-serving and makes a mockery of human rights". This comes on the very same day that a recording of children crying out for their parents from the inside of cages at the Mexican border was released, Trump vehemently defending the policy of enforced separation with his 'national security' narrative. Hmm.. Hypocrisy .. a mockery of human rights .. can they really be that transparent?

Whether we're dealing with the deception of the individual in everyday life, or within the propaganda machine of a government, the thing with the lies people tell to try to hide their own faults is it's almost inevitable they will give themselves away through classic projection. The cornered animal, refusing to face the consequences of its actions to the last, will project its flaws onto those who they feel under attack from. The pot calling the kettle black, if you will. In their rush to defend their position they often are the very last to realise they have revealed themselves for what they are.

The level of sophistication involved in the fairy tales we hear from characters like Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Benjamin Netanyahu and all those others preceding them is, frankly, laughable. They ooze the slime of falsehood from every pore. They betray their shaky narratives within single sentences on a regular basis. They assert their deceptions in bold type, only to belie themselves in the very next breath. Watching the current US administration now is eerily reminiscent of the footage of 'comical Ali' from the first Gulf War, as Trump tweets how well his policies are going whilst the facts on the ground simultaneously show us the opposite truth, whilst Netanyahu is doing a fine impression of Tony Blair in the run up to the Iraq War, with his powerpoint presentations of the 'threat from Iran' which turns out to be decade-old intelligence. These people don't learn from history, such is their exceptionally tiny world view. They don't even possess the wit, charm or intelligence to use rhetoric.

Of course the US wants out of the UNHRC. Human rights are an inconvenience to an administration that wants to cull all protest, monitor all mass communication, further control the media, deport anyone who isn't basically a member of the gammonati and pursue it's self-serving agenda in the guise of 'America first'. Haley showed just how shaky the US position is becoming last month, when following the dreadful Israeli killings of unarmed Palestinian protesters, she simply walked out of the UN Security Council meeting just as the Palestinian envoy was about to speak. It is obvious why. There is only so much defending of the indefensible you can do.

Sadly, there are still an awful lot of people in the general population who choose to believe the lies they are told. Maybe it fits in with their own narrative, or sits comfortably with them because they tell themselves the same lie. Some people start to smell a rat but decide they don't have the time and won't make the effort to delve beyond the surface. Some would rather avoid the inevitable conflict, whether it comes in the form of an argument with somebody or a challenging of their internal dialogue. But it is always a choice. It is harder to challenge deception than to just swallow it hook, line and sinker, but in the long run you do yourself a major disservice by accepting falsehoods or allowing yourself to be lied to with impunity. You effectively enable your own manipulation, and that constitutes a diminishing of your power of control over your own mind.

There exists examples though of a much darker, more insipid, downright clever kind of deception, most often associated with psychopaths. Never to be confused with psychotics, who can commit so-called 'evil' acts through no fault of their own due to their detachment from reality, the psychopath who chooses to lie and deceive will manipulate people and situations systematically, methodically and intelligently, sometimes in a planned fashion for years at a time, to whatever ends they have designed. These individuals can be found anywhere in life, but there is a growing bank of evidence to suggest that psychopaths, or at least those with psychopathic traits, are often to be found in positions of power in the world of finance, business, media and government. It is not that much of a stretch to see that this makes sense. Top politicians, bankers, media barons and company directors routinely have to make decisions that enrich the elite and dump on everyone else whilst telling the public they are doing the opposite.

We have to hope that the basic, low-level morons who constitute a good deal of current world leaders are not eventually replaced by far more sophisticated agents of catastrophe. As it stands, we can safely say that those in power at present vary from the easily condemnable to fertile grounds for satire. If the lessons of history teach us anything about mass deception it is that it only takes one psychopath, planning and orchestrating at the right time and in the right place, to engineer the subjugation, slavery and death of millions. If we begin at the individual level, refusing to tolerate liars and calling them out whenever we find them, we stand the best chance of avoiding the very worst of outcomes for ourselves and every else.

The truth will out .. but sometimes it needs help.

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Green Eyes

I often find myself envious of people. That is not an easy thing to acknowledge. It is certainly important to identify why this is, especially as it is definitely contributing to my being unhappy. So forgive me if this post is rather self-indulgent. I hope it is still worth sharing.

First off, I need to counter the tendency to think that because there are people worse off than me I shouldn't be unhappy. If this were true then I shouldn't ever feel happy because there are always people better off than me, right? The whole process we tend to go through of comparing ourselves to others is always a self-destructive one anyway. It is never a healthy way to think. That said, I recognise that there is an element of projection going on in this process - alone within ourselves, we tend to project our feelings, particularly our faults and flaws, onto others, even though we know at heart we are all on our own paths.

I am at a stage in life where it is frequently pointed out to me, mainly by the media rather than other people, that there are certain things I should have. Chief among these is having a career and owning my own property. These prime markers of 'life after forty' are things which, to be honest, I have basically no hope of having. Property prices in my part of the world are insane. My career prospects are all but zero. That said, I have a basic job which I enjoy, and myself and my family are relatively comfortable in our privately rented flat. We are not wealthy, but we just about have enough money to manage.

Material things used to be a big issue for me. Twenty years ago I would have had very different priorities, but these days I have come to the point where, aside from paying for life's essentials and the occasional treat, I honestly do not care about money. So I certainly don't envy others in a material sense, but what is at the root of my disquiet?

My history of mental illness would seem to be the logical source of my unhappiness in life. However, despite the ongoing battle with anxiety and the ever-present possibility of a bipolar relapse, I am basically stable and have been for years, and I have never been in a better position to deal with issues as they arise. I am high-functioning - I live a 'normal' life and have a wife and family around me. There is a caveat though. Deep down I do harbor a definite sense of unfairness at the cards life has dealt me. I wonder how my life would have gone if mental illness had not basically stolen my youth. I am envious of people who are not so afflicted.

It is difficult to state that you are of above average intelligence and are highly intellectual without sounding arrogant, but there it is! One would assume this to be a good thing, but in my experience it is more often a curse than a blessing. Our society does not seem to value strong, independent thinkers. Intellectuals have to fight through layers of dross and there are many barriers preventing them from fulfilling their potential. There is a reason why many of the great artists and revolutionary thinkers in history died poor and uncelebrated in their time. I do not claim to be at that level, but I do have an overwhelming sense that my true peers are a million miles away. I am envious of people who do not think so much.

I am envious of the 'average Joe', those people who are happy to just coast along and live an 'average' life. Those people who are happy working nine to five, coming home to watch TV, going to the pub at the weekend, or whatever. I am envious of those people who's goals eventually fit nicely into a career or who's talents lead them into business. Those people who's education actually gave them a path into a fulfilling and prosperous future doing something they love. I am envious of people who didn't spend some of the best years of their lives battling just to survive against an invisible foe that threatened to kill them.

We each have our own measures of success, which should always be a personal thing, not something dictated to us by anyone or anything else. By my own definition of success I am not unsuccessful - I have my wife and family whom I love and who love me, I have a job I enjoy, I have a home and I can get by financially. What I am though is unfulfilled. I feel I have only just arrived at 'day zero', and I have no idea how to proceed. Perhaps much of the envy I feel is natural, but it doesn't help me feel any better. I just feel selfish, and empty.

All I can do is hold on to hope, and believe that this too shall pass. “When you walk to the edge of all the light you have and take that first step into the darkness of the unknown, you must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for you to stand upon or you will be taught to fly.” - Patrick Overton

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

End Of An Era

I firmly believe that we are at the end of an era right now. Certainly from a western perspective, the influence of our institutions is crumbling, our internal discourse has become bitter and our 'power' in the world is fading. The 'moral high ground' that the west once appeared to hold, especially at the height of the Cold War, is now all but lost. In this 21st century information age it is up to us all as individuals to carve out an identity and a living for ourselves, and those that do not will be left behind.

I do not claim to be a leading authority on the political and social changes that we have lived through over the last century, but all my reading and studying of literature and documentary films leads me to a certain understanding of how we have arrived at this precipice. I can see that the neoliberal model of capitalism is no longer working for us, and indeed for some time it has actually been destructive. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why it continues to pervade is the absence of large-scale motivation for a new and better system.

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have found the work of visionaries like Adam Curtis, Peter Joseph and The Zeitgeist Movement, and Noam Chomsky fairly early in life. There have been others, and there is bound to be more, but so far these sources have illuminated the causes of the current state of affairs to me the most. Chomsky's writings deftly highlight the US drive towards imperialism and hegemony, whilst the films of Curtis reveal how the west has packaged and sold us capitalism on a plate. Both identify how the western military-industrial complex has rampaged across the world to serve purely its own interests, and how politicians and mainstream media have manufactured our consent for their actions.

For many people, capitalism is very much tied up in the concepts of freedom and democracy. They cite failed states and dictatorships of the past as evidence that capitalism is the only way. The old 'us and them' thinking seems to permeate. Chief among these is the perverse logic that if you aren't a capitalist then you must be a socialist (read communist). Clearly this is, at best, the outdated thinking of an older generation. The legacy of the Cold War obviously cuts deep in some minds. They come unstuck when China is mentioned however, a communist economic superpower just doesn't fit into their mindset.

For me, freedom and democracy are concepts that only truly exist relative to one's situation. You either deal with the boundaries and limitations placed upon you by the government of the country you live in or you emigrate to a more favourable country. It is ironic that those countries so often championed as bastions of free speech and freedom of the press are now enacting some of the most draconian mass-surveillance programs in living memory. It is the very same countries who adopt the most militant policies on the world stage against whatever is the current chosen 'evil regime', whilst completely ignoring other despots because they are 'allies'.

The Zeitgeist Movement offers us a vision of one possible future model for civilisation. The resource-based economy is an attractive concept and certainly worthy of further study, but I fear that the change necessary to achieve anything close to it is a very long way off. It is hard to imagine the idea as anything more than a utopian dream at present, however one can extract some parts of the model and apply them to the near future. Certainly, the issue of increased automation and resulting changes to human employment and the economy, along with climate change and how we can deal with it, are matters so pressing that we definitely need systemic change.

Ultimately, I believe that there is no one system which can carry humanity forward, but there are positive parts to the existing models and definite benefits to some new thinking. The very worst thing that we can do is to continue to get bogged down with the thinking of the past. We have to discard our prejudices, dispense with traditions and reform all our institutions if we are to thrive. Sadly, the current crop of politicians and their rich backers are unlikely to share this view. After all, it is in their best interests to maintain the neoliberal capitalist doctrine that keeps them in power.

"Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Letting Go

Recently I have found that the concept of solitude, and conversely my sense of community, have very much been at the forefront of my thoughts. I seem to be re-evaluating the value I place in my human interactions, both in the past and currently. I find myself drawn to that old poem by John Donne, "no man is an island", and yet simultaneously to the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, "hell is being locked in a room forever with your friends". I see the logic and wisdom of both, but how is one to reconcile these two conflicting truths?

It strikes me that what we are dealing with here is fundamentally rooted in attachment. Psychology has much to say about how our early attachment to others shapes our subsequent interactions. The nature and strength of our relationship to our parents and others around us during our formative years plays an enormous role in shaping our future social interactions. As we grow beyond these early years we go through different stages of attachment. It is inevitable that we will find ourselves having to evaluate which attachments are healthy and which are not.

I have seen the benefits and consequences of human attachment played out in my life and I can draw conclusions about who I am based on these. For instance, I can cite the deaths of my beloved paternal grandparents when I was ten and eleven years old as having a huge impact on me and understand how this affected my relationships with family and friends during the subsequent years. On reflection it is possible to identify negative patterns in one's behaviour and choices that stem from disruptions to, or distortions in, our early attachments in life.

I believe, however, that there is a universal rule of thumb that applies regardless of our personal history. We all require a certain degree of solitude, and we also all need to feel a part of a community. Some people are isolated due to circumstances beyond their control whilst others choose the life of a hermit. Both states are unhealthy, but being alone is something which we all need. It's just a question of how much. Some people are a part of communities which foster dependence and intolerance of outsiders, but we all need to find a healthy way to find a sense of belonging.

I am certainly a person who requires quite a lot of alone time. Those times in my life when I have had long periods where I have been unable to get enough time alone have by far been the worst parts of my life. I am completely comfortable within myself and enjoy my solitude, however, I am also acutely aware of how much I need my children, my wife, my family and my work colleagues and friends. I do feel I am missing a real community though, and it is a growing sense of loneliness that is the result. I am seeking interactions with a certain peer group that I currently feel alienated from - writers, artists, musicians, intellectuals and philosophers. I remain optimistic, however, that this will come with time and effort.

We all need to do a certain amount of ongoing work in order to have healthy interactions in our lives. We have to maintain our relationships whilst evaluating their benefit to us and others. Whether we have a large social circle or a few close friends, we cannot simply establish relationships and leave them to take care of themselves. If we are to stay healthy and grow in life then we have to accept that there will be some who we will have to leave behind. Sometimes the bonds we formed in the past simply elapse and the relationship becomes unhealthy.

Some people are easier to leave behind than others. Sometimes you realise it's just because things have gotten toxic, you're toxic together, so you cut them off to preserve your sanity, and theirs. Sometimes though, you hold on to ties for the wrong reasons. And any time the reason to hold on isn't because you mutually benefit from the connection, it's time to end it. Acquaintance, drinking buddy, friend, family member or partner - the universal rule applies - if it no longer benefits your path, your journey and your personal growth, they've got to go. It's just a question of how hard it is to break free, because once you let go of them you'll realise that your load is much lighter, and you can move on apace.

"Letting go means to come to the realisation that some people are a part of your history, but not a part of your destiny" - Steve Maraboli

Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.

Gotta' Have Faith

Never talk religion or politics, right? Wrong. This rule of thumb is, I believe, based on the premise that talking about these matters always causes arguments. I would challenge that by simply saying that if you can't hold a discussion/debate about these things without descending into arguing then you need to fundamentally examine the reasons why, because in 21st century life we need to be talking about them.

Let's put politics aside for this post and centre on religion..

My experience of religion began during school. I attended a Roman Catholic primary school and so was indoctrinated from a young age into what my young mind found to be a scary, intimidating religion. My early vision of God was of a terrifyingly vengeful overlord, commanding an army of creatures that resembled children with wings, who would swoop down and punish me if I did anything wrong. By the age of ten, unsurprisingly, I had a lot of questions.

My secondary school was also Roman Catholic. Here I encountered some of the most authoritarian zealots it has ever been my misfortune to endure, and that was just the teachers! Frequent mandatory attendance of masses, hymn recitals, forced participation in prayer, and generally being told I was unworthy and sinful ensured that, within a year of being there, I was already rebelling. In short order I hated it all. They would not answer my questions, I was punished for even having them. I left secondary education with an unmistakable, even if somewhat buried notion that religion was not a good thing, however I still believed in the God concept and a good deal of the associated dogma.

For several years after I left school and well into my twenties I found spiritual matters intriguing and was exposed to some major religious texts, the Bible, Torah, Koran and the Upanishads in particular, and also developed a fascination with occult, wiccan and pagan beliefs. 'Paranormal' phenomena fascinated me. I was also reading a lot of psychology and some of the 'spiritual growth' literature that litters the self-help section of bookshops. I was searching for meaning, for the answers to those questions that I left primary school with, that were ruthlessly ignored in the subsequent years. I did have some amazing moments of clarity. I gained an invaluable insight into the basis for some of the worlds major religions. Some of my questions were answered, but only to create new questions.

That period feels like the halycon days to me now. I came out of my twenties still basically a believer, but with some serious doubts. I guess I got to a point where I decided I'm not religious but somewhat 'spiritual'. Since then many things have shaped my opinions on the God concept, religion and spirituality. These musings have kind of come to a head lately, and although my views (as ever) are subject to change without notice pending new information, I have made certain conclusions about religion, faith and spirituality.

I am an atheist. If it was mandatory to be part of an institution of belief then I would be a Humanist (thankfully it isn't). I'm not one of those militantly atheist folk though, the type usually associated with Dawkins or Hitchens. I am fundamentally opposed to forcing my views on others, and I feel no need to vehemently disprove other peoples theories or beliefs. I do not believe in God, heaven, angels, an afterlife or miracles. For me, these concepts all fit into the broad category of 'magical thinking', along with so-called paranormal phenomena such as ghosts, UFO's, time-travel etc. I believe in science. I trust the scientific method to provide me with answers to life's fundamental questions, both now and in the future. Where religious folk gain comfort from God, and spiritual or 'paranormal' explanations satisfy some, I am comforted by the explanations of science, logic and reason.

Does this mean that I believe religion is bad or wrong? Of course not. Too many people throw the baby out with the bathwater, citing the suffering and death meted out by humanity in the name of religion as good enough reason to condemn it. I do understand that viewpoint, I too find religious intolerance and persecution intolerable, indeed it would be easy given my early indoctrination to hate Catholics, to hate all people of faith, but reason and logic combined with my sense of humanity and empathy will not allow me to. I understand why faith is important to people and if organised religion satisfies their needs then I would not only support them but defend their right to believe.

In some ways I occasionally envy the simplicity and certainty that faith seems to provide people. I believe fundamentally that the need to believe in God stems from two facts of human nature. We are all alone within ourselves, inside our own minds. It is not easy or comfortable to be alone so we prefer to believe in a God who is always with us. One day we are all going to die. The idea that at that point we just cease to be is almost unbearable so we choose to believe that we will ascend to heaven to be with God forever. For me, getting to the point where I am now has meant conquering my inbuilt fear of being alone, and of one day dying. I believe I have arrived. Being alone does not perturb me, I am completely comfortable within myself. I have very difficult moments, but who doesn't? Naturally I do not want to die for a long time. I feel I have much to contribute and much to live for, but I am comfortable that one day I will die and that will be the end of me. Any fear of dying is countered by my will to contribute as much as I can while I am alive.

I'll conclude with this quote from the amazing mind of Albert Einstein - “A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”


Copyright ©2018 Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.