The Insane Elite - Return to Indigenous

This began with Jonathan Cook's recent blogs on neoliberalism (13th and 15th September). "Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations - whatever you wish to call it - has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind." [15th]

He then went on to consider new narratives, .... But the issue of neoliberalism is power, and power and influence lies with the elite stashing away. If there were no elite and no accumulation the world would have a chance.

I personally do not know these elite, I can read Gore Vidal to begin to understand them but I have no personal knowledge. Putting Icke aside, these people are humans so I can ask questions concerning basic human nature. All around me I see people sitting on compassion and becoming screwed up because of it. Without the path of compassion people hold to conditioning and become addicted. And these insane elite are addicted - to money, power and influence. I don't have to know them to know that. They establish a protected lifestyle in which they do not see the worst consequences of their neoliberal system, but their compassion is still inside them causing problems, causing addiction. What pain must the Koch brothers be feeling because they have promoted climate denial, they are literally promoting denial of who they are, how that must hurt.

In the same vein, as Chomsky said on Democracy Now "So, Donald Trump, for example, is perfectly aware of the dangerous effects, in the short term, of global warming. So, for example, recently he applied to the government of Ireland for permission to build a wall to protect his golf course in Ireland from rising sea levels. And Rex Tillerson, who was supposed to be the adult in the room before he was thrown out, as CEO of ExxonMobil, was devoting enormous resources to climate change denial, although he had, sitting on his desk, the reports of ExxonMobil scientists, who, since the '70s, in fact, were on the forefront of warning of the dire effects of this accelerating phenomenon. I don't know what word in the language - I can't find one - that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the literal - the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word "evil" doesn't begin to approach it. These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead, what's being - there is a focus on what I believe are marginalia." (clip) Is that not a description of insanity - destruction of Gaia for a few more dollars? It makes no sense, it is insane addiction.

I have a view of Occupy that points to the vulnerability of these insane. Whilst Occupy was only part of a global movement (including Horizontalidad, Arab Spring, Podemos), it gained a great deal of publicity in the West. Perhaps its most lasting impact was the recognition of the source of the problem as the 1% - terminology that is in common usage now but was never in use prior to Occupy Wall Street. The 1% were labelled. Then Occupy was smashed, and 7 years later we are more divided than ever because of the confusion caused by the huge investment by the Dark Money Network. To me these are connected, the 1% did not like being labelled - they did not like the recognition.

Shame these people. Call them insane. They are worse than evil - say this. MSM glorifies them but we don't have to turn round and believe their PR. These people are insane and evil, and are killing us off. Say it. Just one of these oligarch families giving up on their excess (not becoming poor just giving up excess) could have major repercussions - it would not be token.

They want us then to say "what about the foundations?" - Bill Gates etc. These foundations are propping up neoliberalism, they are not working to bring it down. The foundations will invest in products of the neoliberal system to "help people", it is just another way of perpetuating the system.

To be honest it is not that easy. Bill Gates could walk into the projects and give away his excess, and there would still be the projects - discussed here. But with clearer thinking (only alluded to in the blog) we can begin to make effective change. And the answer is a return to the indigenous. The process of accumulation of wealth has had the effect of accumulations of peoples in cities - drawn to the money to survive. For Bill to give his money away in these cities would simply propagate the accumulation. It is necessary to be more strategic.

When I talk about returning to the indigenous I am not talking about an impractical 'back to nature" process that would not be possible for most people. Firstly we have to stop the accumulations of peoples in cities, we have to enable these people to stay within their indigenous communities. Now that Bill Gates could do. Go back to a community and ask them how he could use his money to enable their communities to be local, organic and sustainable. Bill will not have the answers but these people will. And most of these people would not look twice at an opportunity to return to their indigenous communities - to live with their wisdom.

However we are all indigenous peoples so Bill can go to our rural communities and ask them "how can we be local (rural), organic and sustainable?" And they too will know the answer, so more and more people will not have to accumulate in cities.

Let's go back to the projects - the council estates in Britain (or elsewhere). In these places there is crime - the frightening Lamont Bishops. Lamont is the top of the pile but he is just making a living. To survive he has to make the people in the projects criminal - he has no choice. The people in the projects try to survive but unless they are particularly strong (and many are), they or their family have to get caught up in the gangs, become part of Lamont's world. Within the projects it is the strength of Lamont's world that makes it impossible for Bill Gates to go in with his excess, give it away, and make a change.

But with the indigenous localisation approach, there is less accumulation in the cities. There are fewer people in Lamont's world - he has less power. Maybe there are people in the projects who can return to their own communities. Or maybe these people can be relocated to such communities.

I immediately ask about technology, technology is an integral part of 1%-accumulation and we cannot leave technology behind. We need our toys. But such toys can be bought with Bill Gates's excess, within the local communities there can be the car, mobile phone, laptop, fridge and microwave whilst at the same time people are living in harmony with nature through localisation, organics and sustainability. A balance can be found with sufficient of these 1% excesses to harmonise technology with the indigenous way because there is excess to buy these things.

So to the insane elite I say "return to the indigenous". Take your excess, go to them and ask them how it can be spent to maintain or return to an indigenous way of life. Insane elite, in this way your money can be used to help. Isn't this what Occupy was about?

And to everyone else, I say "call them insane elite", make them guilty for what they do, appeal to their compassion, make them recognise that they are people who, as Chomsky says, are more than "evil". Life is easy for the elite, they can buy what they want, but they can't buy harmony with their own compassion. Make them feel this.

And foundations, go local, help people be local, ask them how your money could be used. Learn to find the genuine people - if you are genuine yourself. Good development agencies know who.

Return to indigenous - be local, organic and sustainable. Tell the insane elite this is what to do.