NEGATIVE VIRTUE SIGNALLING IS A FORM OF GAS LIGHTING

“Virtue Signalling” is a recent buzz word that denotes the actions of a person who is trying to demonstrate, usually in a conspicuous manner, their own moral virtue.   It often has a connotation of being an empty gesture, but that doesn’t have to be the case.  It can be mildly annoying to very negative in its effects.

There is, however, a negative version of virtue signalling which doesn’t get much discussion.  For lack of a better term, let’s call it negative VS.  This is when somebody accuses somebody else of poor morals, virtue or political correctness.  A few basic examples of this might be when someone behind you yells, “thanks for not holding the door” if you are exiting a store and don’t see someone behind you, or if you encounter a friend and they say, “thanks for not asking how I’m feeling” in a sarcastic way.  I suppose that there are times when one might be legitimately shamed for not holding a door open, such as when a person with a walker or a cane is struggling and you are obviously aware of it.  However most of the time I find this to be a petty and exploitative action.

I ask myself how I would feel if I were to say such a thing to a friend or stranger.  If someone in front of me neglected to hold a door, or if I encountered a friend and they didn’t begin the conversation by asking how I was feeling, and I immediately drew attention to either of these, how would I feel?  To put it bluntly, I would feel like an ass.  I would feel like I was deliberately applying a negative judgement and trying to make the other person feel less virtuous and less confident, often without really understanding the entire picture.

This is an act of tearing someone else down, trying to make them feel self doubt about their worth.  While there may be some specific cases where that is justified, I don’t feel that this would be the majority of cases and, if ever,  should be done very carefully, deliberately and instructively.  In most cases it is done to bolster the self righteousness of the person making the comment and to fabricate a reality where the other person should be feeling badly or lacking in moral virtue.  This kind of formatting of reality is nothing less than gas lighting.  It is stealing energy from the target of the comment and is one of the many kinds of social vampirism that is related to gas lighting.

I have found that at this time of year, many of those who are disposed towards normal virtue signalling can easily fall into the negative sort.  I don’t lecture those who do it (as it would likely be a waste of time), but understanding the process allows you to protect yourself from any guilt or self disparaging thoughts.  It protects you from the energy leeching that is at the heart of the practice.  –Not to say that one can never be criticized or corrected.  But this practice is unhealthy for both parties concerned.

Screen Addiction

Commentary on This Is Life with Lisa Ling, S5E4, “Screen Addiction”

I made a point of watching this particular episode of This Is Life because I strongly suspected that it would shed light on the thesis of my book, The Tao of the Wild.  The episode takes a close look at the case studies of two young people who fell victim to screen addiction.  The first led to a tragic suicide while the second led to attempted suicides and eventual therapy.  Both stories have a lot to say about the influence of social media on individuals with poor identity structures and conflicted Multiple Selves within their personality.

My central thesis is that all of us have personalities constructed of Multiple Selves, a perspective held by Hal and Sidra Stone in their book The Divided Self, and supported by a multitude of others in the psychological community along with the current Zen Buddhist community.  I have explained and expounded on this thesis extensively in my book.  These Multiple Selves can be in a state of anarchy, where they take turns steering the ship.  If there is a captain, then there is some order and coordination, but if there is not then there can be conflict and confusion within the personality.  Throughout it all, there is a striving for identity, whether it be one Self dominating the others, a “Captain Self” or Controller which can bring order and some unity, or even a higher, Aware Self which can reify identity and self control.

It goes without saying that a developing adolescent lives in a state of turmoil with regard to their inner life and the dominance of various Selves.  Not only is their state of development at an early stage, with the whole system being soft and malleable, but a teenager’s life is full of various roles that they have to navigate and which are often at odds.  This, of course, is true to varying degrees with some teens coping better than others.  However, all go through identity pangs and tribulations, risking depression, sometimes frantically looking for feedback or validation from external sources.

Enter Social Media.  Teens have always risked placing themselves in negative feedback loops through a poor choice of friends, gangs or even involvement in cults.  However with social media, this risk becomes magnified tremendously.  The case studies in this TV episode clearly show teens who had normal self doubts and teenage angst but who discovered negative and depressing social media sites where they could, in the first case of the suicide, indulge their own dark impulses and get regular, powerful validation from depressing sites and other like minded people.  This is all done in secret, with parents not really knowing what is happening, and even friends often being locked out of the social media loop.  It becomes a separate life because it hijacks separate Selves within the adolescent.  One Self finds validation and gains superiority over the others, especially if it is a teen with an already weak or confused identity structure.  Without a Controller/Captain there is little self awareness, observation or diagnostics.  The validated Self is one acting in a self reinforcing narrative of desperation.

In the second case study a strong academic and athletically successful boy became addicted to gaming, finding easy self validation on line in various video games.  He often spent consecutive, sleepless days online.  This, of course, can’t happen without sacrificing real, face to face, social interactions.  Isolation is inevitable, as is a disengagement from normal social activities like team sports.  It is a double dose of disconnection, relationships and activity, with real life consequences.  Those consequences can only complicate life, often driving the teen further into their gaming and isolation.

In this second case we see the same result on the Self and Personality structure of the screen addicted person.  What starts as a healthy personality, with diverse and engaged Selves, becomes seduced by the screen into a more and more narrow Self structure.  “Seduced” is an apt word, as the boy in question admitted that viewing pornography played a significant role in his screen time.  One Self, The Gamer, strongly supported by a Sexual Self, totally dominates his Personality to the exclusion of almost everything else, while barricaded in his bedroom.

The mother of the girl who committed suicide states emphatically that her daughter would still be alive if it were not for social media.  There is some truth to that, as it was the feedback loop from the depression web sites and chat rooms that undoubtedly fed Selves that are not abnormal in adolescents, but which become abnormal when fed regularly.  Teens often have to overcome depressing thoughts and complicated situations.  They do so by engaging with their environment, including family, friends and other help when necessary.  Reinforcement of only the negative along with isolation may make the teen think that they have a “real identity” in the long run, but it is really just feeding one of many Selves, -and not the healthy one.

So what can be done?  The first temptation is to blame Social Media, and there has been a lot of talk lately about how sites are contrived to addict or subliminally engage users, much like a gambling casino.  There should be steps taken to minimize that effect.  However I don’t think that will ever really happen.  The dark websites that the girl visited would not disappear in that scenario, nor would the porn sites or gaming sites that enticed the boy.

By understanding the mechanics of personality, we can see that a big part of the problem is shallow identity structure, -very much in synch with the idea of shallow values and connectivity that I have explained in my book.  Strengthening that identity structure is something that is completely ignored in our education system.  In fact it was completely ignored in the therapy that the boy eventually participated in.  I was stunned to see that there was no internal therapy as part of their program.  There was no meditation or mindfulness exercises, -the exact measures that would create self reflection and would strengthen the Captain of the ship, so that the adolescent would have a wider perspective than that coming from their various screen lives and Selves.  This, I believe, is the more practical answer.  Social media is a business model that is not going away, and which honestly has a lot of potential benefits for the people who can engage in it more objectively.  So, let’s start giving our teens, and people in general, the tools and wider perspective necessary to cope with their technological world.  Lets start educating people to have a stronger and deeper connection to their own personalities and identities.

That will not only help prevent screen addiction, but will have many other positive consequences.

Some Thoughts on the Munk debate on Populism between Frum and Bannon

Last night I invested several hours listening to the debate on populism between Steve Bannon and David Frum on the November Munk debate.  I turned out to me largely worth it, an enjoyable and surprisingly civil debate.  You can, of course, see the video of it on their site, which would allow you to digest it in smaller doses.

A few thoughts:

1. The hype and protest against the debate because of Bannon’s “hate speech” was largely undeserved. Now, make no mistake that I disagree with Bannon very strongly and find some of his ideas disturbing.  However, I also believe that the standard has to be very high in order for something to be banned and labelled hate speech.  I saw the film on Bannon at TIFF (which was not protested) and have seen several other interviews, and I’ve never witnessed the level of hateful ideas that would be necessary to ban him as a speaker.  I can’t speak for all of his comments in past years, but what I’ve seen and what I saw last night did not rise to that level.  He’s not a David Duke or a Milo.
2. I think that Bannon’s ideas are appealing because he is relatively good at pointing at real questions and issues. Like Sartre, he sees the problems, but has no acceptable answers.  I can agree that a form of “elite”, -the ones who caused the 2008 crash for example-, had and still have too much power.  I agree that there is a political class that needs to be shaken up.  But stating a problem doesn’t mean that any old answer/solution is worth trying.  Desperation is not a good motivator when it comes to political standards, and in this case the proof of the pudding was and is very much in the tasting.
   At the very beginning of his opening comment he stated that populism was inevitable and that the only question was whether it would be capitalist or socialist (like Bernie Sanders) populism.  Oddly, he never returned to that point in order to argue the benefits of one type over the other.  Personally I don’t think that either is inevitable, but if that was his thesis, it certainly would have been a point worth pursuing.
3. The debate, as I said, was very civil and highly informative on both sides. It was worth the wait for it to get started (because of the protestors) and the hours of listening.  Unfortunately the ending was seriously marred by confusion over the audience voting on the question in order to determine a “winner”.  As is the tradition in debates, they polled the audience on the question at the beginning and at the end.  They also, however, added an additional poll as to what percentage of the audience considered themselves willing to change their minds as a result of persuasion in the debate.  The debate was running late and so the ending was rushed.  The result they announced was a win by Bannon with over a 30% shift.  This immediately seemed suspicious considering the amount of laughter at many of Bannon’s statements and the distribution of applause.  As near as I can tell, it turns out that they mistakenly used the numbers for those willing to change their minds instead of those that actually changed their minds, as those numbers are conveniently identical.  Later, on the Face Book site, they posted that the numbers did not shift from the beginning to the end, which makes far more sense.  Bannon’s performance was certainly not stellar enough to cause a 30 point shift.
   Of course this unfortunately gave rise to comments about “fake news” and a “liberal conspiracy”.  What is far more likely is that some poor tech person hit the wrong button or that the system glitched.  But hopefully they will issue a clear and accurate explanation on either the web site or FB page.  To not do this would place a serious blemish on the Munk Debates.

Insights from considering how to “vote Integral”

This is an addendum to the last post I made on “Transcend and Include”.  I was inspired by a recent podcast on Jeff Salzman’s Daily Evolver podcast about How To Vote Integral.

When you consider it, how a person trying to make an Integral decision would decide how to vote really addresses the the whole issue about valuing and recognizing the positives in each level.  There are few Integral, Second Tier politicians out there, and it’s not certain how much success they might have if elected at this point in time.  (Take Obama for example, who was pretty close to having an Integral outlook, but who became hogtied by his reality.)  It is also true, as I tried to outline in the previous article, that each level has something valuable to contribute to society and government and, as Jeff points out in his podcast, success often depends on using input from multiple levels.

So, choosing your vote requires filtering the positives and negatives of each level.  It is not only the ideology that is right or wrong, but also the way it is discerned.  I really like that word as it is a word like judge or discriminate, but has no connotations.  Discern.  How do you do that.

Jeff’s podcast gives several ideas, at one point saying that perhaps you should chose wisdom over ideology.  I agree with that, but I don’t find it very helpful guidance.  One thing that I was surprised that he didn’t say was that perhaps Horizontal development and integrity are just as important as Vertical development.  Vertical development is the hierarchy of Traditional vs. Modern vs. Post-Modern, or the Red / Amber / Orange /Green continuum that Integral and Spiral Dynamics uses to describe social evolution.  But we’ve seen that there are negative traits in each of these, so that’s not enough when making a political decision.  Horizontal development is growth within a particular stage.  It is often seen as “integrity”.

That Horizontal development can be addressed using many facets and factors.  It can be that all Lines of development, such as intellectual, emotional, physical, social, etc., have undergone equal Vertical evolution.  Someone can be post-modern at a cognitive line, but traditional or even pre-traditional at an emotional and social stage.  (In many cases that would be called a sociopath.)  Someone with even development and balance across different kinds of “intelligence” is more likely to have the wisdom that Jeff is talking about.

Another aspect of Integral theory is respect of internal realities vs external ones vs social ones.  These are the four quadrants.  Certainly, a person who regards and takes into account factors from each of these quadrants is more likely to be a successful politician.  And one has to remember that it doesn’t matter what vertical level a person may be at, they can still access each one of these levels and utilize them.  A person with a traditional world view can access their own personal inner reality and values, can appreciate the objectivity of the external world and reality, and can consider social and systemic consequences.  A traditional person who relates to the world more in this way is going to be a more successful and wise politician than one who does not.  In fact they might be a better politician than someone at a “higher” stage who does not have this balance.

Another important aspect of Horizontal development is Shadow Work.  Shadows are the denied and submerged parts of our own mind that can act to sabotage our daily activities.  No matter how enlightened and wise we may think ourselves, if Shadows are not confronted they can ruin everything.  Sometimes entire cultures have Shadows in that there are deep ethnic or cultural injuries that have just never been confronted and absorbed into the main stream.  They then fester as cultural hang-ups.  Certainly a leader or politician who has dealt with their personal hang-ups or Shadows is likely to be more in touch with the positives than someone who has demons or skeletons, no matter what stage they are at.

Personally, I think that Horizontal development is essential to successful Vertical development, and should be a major part of any Integral mentoring or coaching program.  The ones I’ve witnessed recognize this and use it.  Insufficient Horizontal development leads to fixations, i.e. getting stuck in certain aspects of development which then can lead to integrity problems.  Politicians seem to have a lot of those.

WHAT TRANSCEND AND INCLUDE MEANS: The Pros and Cons of Each AQAL Level

The following is my attempt to address a few issues often brought up within the Integral Community.  An understanding of Integral Theory would facilitate understanding it, but I’ve tried to write in in a way that would be accessible to most people.

“Transcend and include” is a central concept in the idea of evolution through the AQAL levels of Integral theory.  As you progress from Traditional to Modern to Post-Modern you are supposed to retain the best parts of the previous level as you migrate to the world view of the next level.  It often doesn’t happen that way because each level believes that it is the only right way to look at things, often rejecting with enthusiasm the values and perspectives of the previous level.  Once one achieves an Integral, Second Tier level, one is open to the value and contributions of each of the previous levels.

Itemizing the pros and cons of each level seems to be a necessary task in order to filter out what gets included and what gets transcended.  Although I have come across a few indirect mentions of this in various readings and podcasts, I feel that it would be valuable to spell these our more directly.  This is what I am attempting to do in this article.

Let’s start with the Traditional / Pre-Rational / Amber level.  This is a particularly important topic because this level represents one of the largest portions of the population, and failure to understand them is at the heart of the current culture wars and the current social tension.  In fact, members of this Traditional level are not all the “basket of deplorables” to which Hillary so unfortunately assigned them.  It is the fact that they are all viewed as some kind of uncivilized, substandard group of people that has led to the reactionary results of the recent American election, and we would be well advised to make sure that we don’t fall into the same mistake here in Canada.

The Traditional level has many strengths.  These have been notably demonstrated during the disasters and tragedies of the last few months.  During the string of hurricanes that hit southern Texas and Florida there were countless stories of individual and group heroism in selfless aid, sharing and community solidarity.  This was a demonstration of Traditional positive values.  They are loyal to community and family.  They are group centric, and feel a moral obligation to that group.  Their trust in their religion gives them strength and hope when pure reason would fail.  There is a spiritual commitment to that religion that translates into a sense of awe about the world and a personal relationship with that spirituality.  In small towns, there is a sense of pride and decency which helps prevent things like delinquency and graffiti.  I have personally sensed that strong community citizenship in the many Midwestern and western towns I’ve visited through the years.  Contrary to being “deplorable”, there is a real core of conservative decency.  These are all valuable traits which undoubtedly enabled the settlement of the New World in the face of many hardships.

However, there are many shortcomings within all of this.  Group-centric more often than not means that the positive qualities of which we speak are only extended to members of that home group.  People who are outsiders or who are different are not included.  This is also true of ideas.  When you are using words like “conservative” or “traditional” you have to understand that they are aimed at preserving the past and are very resistant to change.  Change is a threat to the group and the comforting stability.  Values are linked to a literal interpretation of the rules that define the group, -in N. America this most commonly being one form or another of Christianity.  As it is a pre-rational stage, it doesn’t know how to shine the light of logic or reason onto those rules or customs and so they are inflexibly and stubbornly accepted.  This and the exclusivity caused by group centric beliefs give rise to the more negative traits of discrimination, racism, sexism and a variety of other prejudices, including a suspicion of education and intelligence.  These are the qualities of a smaller world and have to change when one accepts a larger world.

Of course, science and culture do not stand still.  As they evolve they become a threat to tradition.  Galileo was persecuted for suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.  In modern times that persecution and rejection is aimed at people who believe in evolution and who do not believe the literal, Biblical age of the Earth as 8 000 years.

Often, this cultural confrontation leads to the Traditional level rejecting science and progress in its entirety, and those in the rational levels see this as barbaric.  Intellectualism and science are often ridiculed by the Amber level.  When the rational levels (Orange and Green) view this, they’re likely to put all of the Amber characteristics into one basket and label it deplorable.  That’s a mistake on many levels.  Not only does it deny the many positive characteristics of the Amber level, but it also places them in a defensive position from which they are far less likely to evolve.  When you are defensive, it makes it harder to “transcend”, and those who do are often lacking in the “include” as the jump can often be a traumatic one.  Those who progress from Amber to Orange often divest themselves of all traces of the previous level.  Like the adolescent who has just discovered the power of reason, they turn it on everything else in a frenzy of rejection.  All forms of spiritual involvement are given the hatchet, and often so are the group centric practices of loyalty and obligation.

A similar analysis can be made of the Orange / Modernist / Rational level.  Its strength is obviously the power of reason and science superseding superstition.  It dawned with the Age of Enlightenment, which led to the Industrial Revolution and scientific breakthroughs culminating in the cure of many diseases and putting a man on the moon.  Primitive beliefs about the cause of disease were replaced with an understanding of bacteria and infection, in turn leading to how one can cure them.  Those at the Orange level can respond reasonably to argument and logic (although they don’t always do that).

But the flip side can be the narrow absolutism of materialism.  It leads to determinism, the questioning of free will, capitalism at its worst, and Social Darwinism.  The vitality and awe of the human experience is thrown out with the Amber superstition, leaving the barren landscape of existentialism.  Like Ayn Rand’s character in the novel “We The Living”, it looks out on the world and judges its value only in terms of human need, pragmatic creativity and functionality.  It is beautiful if it was a beautiful human creation.  It can be sterile, opportunist and exploitive due to economic and materialistic pragmatism.  Again, because it believes that it is the only valid world view, it ravages everything outside of its boundaries and in time exaggerates everything within.  While it is a plus that it respects achievement, it is a negative that it respects only achievement and at the cost of so many other values.

And, in turn, we can examine the Post-Modern or Green stage.  The larger scale advancement of the Green / Post-Modernism / Trans-Rational level in the 60s and 70s brought a broader, more inclusive world view often described as Pluralism and a greater degree of relativism in looking at alternative points of view.  It led to a greater movement towards racial and gender equality, above and beyond the formal adjustments that were made under Modernism.  It began greater acceptance of issues around sexual identity and Gay rights.  It began to be more inclusive of other cultures, ascribing to them a degree of internal validity.  All of this acts as an interesting bridge to the Teal or Second Tier world view which embodies the next level in Integral Theory, i.e. the Integral Level.  Compassion was extended not only to other lifestyles and cultures, but also expanded to Nature in general though new environmental awareness.  The ideas of consciousness, self improvement, and things like transactional psychology emerged to extend the world view to the internal (UL) realm.  Parts of spirituality were reclaimed as people realized that pure reason may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater when Modernism reacted against Traditionalism, and as a result trans-rational thought began to consider that logic and reason were not the be all and end all.  Placing materialism on a pedestal had the same detrimental effects as dogmatic traditionalism.  And yet, reason had to be held in the equation in all of these new initiatives in order to give it some grounding.  Hence there was an attempt to justify the new spirituality in terms of Quantum Physics, -sometimes a more successful attempt at justification than at other times.

But like all of the other levels, there is an inevitable dark side potential, interestingly being called “mean green” by Integral thinkers.  As was the case with the other levels, there is the tendency to go overboard.  Pluralism often became relativism, where other aspects of foreign cultures were not only considered for merit, but were automatically validated regardless of what it was.  Instead of each opinion having some truth to it, the tendency was to say that all opinions were in fact true, meaning that there was no truth.  This led to two very damaging consequences.  The first was a dominance of relativism and nihilism that did not allow any form of examination or discrimination when dealing with other points of view.  Everything had to be accepted, which means that there was only “include” and no “transcend”.  There was no selection of values to carry forward or leave behind.  There were no positive and negative aspects because total inclusion demanded that you include everything without any such discrimination, leading to a sort of Nihilistic world view.

In a bizarre twist, this morphed into a second consequence.  Everything had to be accepted, except non acceptance.  For that there was extreme intolerance, leading to things like micro aggressions, political correctness, safe spaces and protests against many things that should be regarded as free speech.  To be clear, each of these things have appropriate applications.  People who are psychologically vulnerable need safe spaces and extra consideration.  Hate speech should not be regarded as free speech without special consequences.  But the trend got out of hand and in many cases these principles are being used as the norm, not the exception.  I called it bizarre because imbedded in this there is an inherent paradox.  On one hand Green wants to be tolerant of other cultures and ways of life.  On the other hand they are extremely intolerant of the social levels such as Amber and risk referring to them as a “basket of deplorables”.

Each level, as we’ve seen, has its positive and negative sides.  There seems to be a pattern.  Understanding this allows us to make other conclusions.

First, it answers the original question about “transcend and include”, making it clear that we can leave behind the negative while updating the positive within the previous level and carrying it forward to the new level.

Second, it allows us to understand how an Integral, Second Tier world view can value aspects of each level without necessarily having to accept the more unsavory parts of them which don’t meet new standards of inclusion.  In my opinion, one of the biggest issues in our current state of cultural polarization is the inability of levels to see the positive in the other levels.  This isn’t surprising as each First Tier level tends to see itself as the only valid world view.  However, Second Tier has to learn this lesson, and even Green has to begin to have some sensitivity towards it.  This is the real reason that political Progressives lost so much in the Heartland of America.  Those people felt ignored and demeaned.

Third, it draws attention to the idea that horizontal development is just as important as vertical development.  This means that within any given level there is a lot of personal work to be done.  Integral theory is not just about levels.  Lines of development are just as important.  Making progress in all lines of development such as emotional intelligence, social interaction and spiritual development all are going to have an impact on successful transition to higher levels, not to mention that good, even development just does a lot to help make a good person.  Similarly, shadow work is an essential component at every single level, playing a huge part in the positive vs. negative characteristics.  As I read somewhere recently (can’t remember or I would give credit) and evenly balanced compassionate Amber person is in many ways much better company than a Mean Green person, just as a “nice” ten year old is often a better person than a disturbed adult.

If this is truly a pattern, it should be apparent in the Red / Warrior level.  I feel that it is, with independence and personal achievement being important qualities on the positive side, while lack of empathy, egocentrism and lack of nuance becomes a problem in our modern society.

Similarly, there should be positive and negative aspects to Teal / Turquoise, although I’m not really prepared to go into those here at this time.  Unless the switch to Second Tier magically changes the pattern, it is something that should be seen as an important factor in transition and inclusion.  And since “magic” is more of a Red / Amber thing, my money is on the pattern replicating.

THE POWER OF CEREMONY

Yesterday I had the honour of conducting a marriage ceremony for an old student/friend and his bride.  I’m not really qualified to legally notarize a marriage, so the couple was married the day before in a civil procedure by a judge.  However I am sure that the date of yesterday’s ceremony will become the official wedding anniversary.  Why?  Because when it comes to the true meaning and spirit of a wedding, it’s not the stroke of a pen that is significant, but rather the gathering of people who witness a symbolic union.  Part of it is the exchange of rings and the reading of vows, but even more importantly it is the supportive witnessing of the ceremony by friends and family.

This is the nature of ceremony.  It goes beyond signing a document or making a simple proclamation.  There’s a power in ceremony that comes from something beyond words and straight cognition.  Symbolism and ritual go further than words, adding layers of emotion and meaning that penetrate more deeply into consciousness.  People can proclaim something and the result is a shallow understanding.  Ceremony results in an understanding which is deeper and more long lasting.

Modernism often wants to strip out ceremony and symbolism replacing it with practicality.  As a result we’ve forgotten the benefits.  This is particularly true of ceremony related to rites of passage.  “Primitive” and traditional cultures have had ceremony surrounding rites of passage for children, adolescents, adults and seniors, many of which have been abandon or forgotten.  As a result passages through critical stages of life are hollow and aren’t paired with the kinds of symbolic meanings and responsibilities that would permit more authentic transitions.  The transition of an adolescent into an adult is too often punctuated only by acquiring a driver’s licence, getting drunk or sexual conquest.  There is no other ceremonial rite of passage in normal society to facilitate and elevate this transition.  Marriages outside of religious doctrine are often stripped of deeper meaning because alternatives are not easily found.  Post modernism has introduced some “New Age” approaches, but this doesn’t sit well with many people.

The value of ceremony is independent of religion or even cultural expectations.  It can be spiritual, but only need be so in a general way that touches something deeper in our minds.  But it is an important part of our culture of transition and growth that we must reconnect with.

THE THIN VENEER OF CIVILITY

Eventually I want to get to the subject of the surge in vandalism and hate crimes against Muslims, Jews and many other sectors of society.  But first…

Traveling gives you a deep understanding and respect for the fact that civilization is often based on a thin veneer of civility.  By that I mean that for many, human nature hasn’t changed that much over time and from area to area.  When walking through the ruin streets of Pompeii I considered how superficial many aspects of our so called “progress” actually were.  Stripped of laws and institutions, what we normally regard as civilized or even progressive societies could easily revert to an egocentric and warrior like state.

When the civil rights revolution took place in the southern U.S. at the end of the 60s and through the 70s, there was a radical difference in the way that black people were treated.  It wasn’t a perfect situation and there was a lot of residual discrimination and racism.  Obviously, there still is.  But, by and large, a lot of it was submerged and the overall state improved dramatically.  Not because people changed, but because the standards and expectations along with many of the actual rules shifted strongly in the direction of civil rights.  And so it has remained, with racist, pre civil rights sentiments, percolating quietly below the surface, unfortunately still manifesting from time to time, still being addressed in law enforcement, incarceration and many other areas.  But one cannot say that there hasn’t been significant improvement, to the point that a current debate is whether discrimination and inequality still exist, or whether “white privilege” exists.

We see that thin veneer in other areas as well.  Several years ago, here in Canada, riots broke out in Vancouver that surprised everyone.  It was in response to a sports event.  For one strange night the rule of law was suspended and people let loose with their more primitive, violent selves.  This is not unusual, and one can’t help but wonder what the results would be if our society lost the ability to enforce the consequences to the rules and laws that define our society.  What would happen in a natural disaster or an epidemic where police and other emergency resources were unavailable?  Would our better natures take over or would the primitive self lash out in self preservation.  People concerned with survival in such situations are not overly optimistic, claiming that 10% of the population would have little hesitation to stealing your supplies and around 1% might be willing to kill you in order to eat … you.

It’s an old question, often told in literature and films.  My feeling is that a rather large percentage of society is constrained by a very delicate and easily broken veneer of civility, held in check by fear of consequences.  They secretly harbour a world view that places them at the top of the priority heap.

[For clarity, let me explain that I do not hold all people in such regard.  When I’m talking about “human nature” here, I’m thinking about the more primitive, irrational aspects of it.  I’m not even talking about people with a conservative or traditional world view, as it is plain that hatred comes from all parts of a political spectrum.  Our society is progressing and evolving, and there are many who don’t fall into this category.  Unfortunately there are also many who do.]

Herein lays, in my opinion, the basis for the current shift in vandalism we’re witnessing.  Many uncivil people, normally are constrained by the standards of society by which they’re surrounded by rules, examples and expectations.  When you have a prominent person like the President of the United States purposefully taking a sledge hammer to that veneer of civility, many people see it as permission.  They are emboldened by these brash and uncivil expressions of anger and hate, misogyny and racial profiling exhibited by a person who is a powerful symbol and icon of what the social standards should be.  The President’s status in such matters cannot be overemphasized.

Donald Trump has seriously damaged our society, not just in the U.S. but all over the world, by trashing civility and empowering Neanderthal behaviour.  Many things such has his comments about women and encouraging violence and intolerance at his campaign rallies (among so many other things) have set a new standard.  Now nothing keeps in check the base attitudes and opinions which were previously closeted by people because social standards were opposed to them.  Those social standards are no longer in control.

In this light it is easy to understand the bomb threats and vandalism of Jewish gravestones.  It is not reasonable to believe that hatred will be directed only in the limited direction that the U.S. administration chooses.  Hatred is a primitive thing.  Once unleashed it will find its own way into the heart of all people who have been harboring frustrations and prejudices, whether it be against Muslims, people of colour, Jews, gays or whatever is at hand that provides an opportunity to lash out against someone different.

Jews seem surprised at this recent violence and persecution.  I’m not.  It may easily spread to other groups.  Once you open Pandora’s Box, the consequences are out of your control.  Trump did, and it is.  And it will take a long time to reverse.

THE AUTOMATION, ECONOMIC AND EDUCATION CRISIS

In his book, Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut describes a world where master craftsmen and the best assembly line workers are studied and recorded in order to program robotic automation to emulate them.  Work on the factory floor is all done by robots programmed to copy the movements of the best workers.  These workers are paid a handsome bonus and then relieved of their jobs, just like all of their co-workers who are not as fortunate to get the bonus.  The result is a massive amount of unemployment with people receiving enough to get by, but generally living aimless, drifting lives.  I read the book back in the 1970s, but the haunting picture has remained with me for decades.

Now we are seeing signs that the this prophetic literature may actually come true.  Automation in factories is responsible for more of the unemployment in the manufacturing sector than most people know or are willing to admit.  Fortune magazine estimates that over 80% of lost jobs are due to automation or other related domestic factors.  When this is told to politicians they often respond with, “Well, then there will be jobs building and maintaining the robots.”  But studies show that jobs related to automation are very temporary, disappearing when the designing and building are completed, and the maintenance jobs are quite sparse (that being one of the advantages of automation, -you don’t need a large work force to maintain production).

Similarly, we are now looking at the very real prospect of a revolution in driverless motor vehicles.  Once this is perfected it will impact everyone from taxi drivers to truck drivers.  Big rigs moving along principal highways will be the first to go driverless.  It will be more efficient because robots don’t have to sleep or stop to eat.  Transit buses will likely be the next to be hit.

We’re already heading towards automated check outs at the grocery store and at MacDonald’s.  It’s only a matter of time before AI tech gets to the point where employees like warehouse workers and even middle management position become at least partially redundant.

I don’t see new jobs in technology keeping pace with those jobs being lost by the above circumstances.  Even if they did, there is the whole question of educating people adequately in order for them to fill those jobs.  Currently there is a huge shortage of skilled workers in the tech industry, now largely being filled by immigrants because the domestic population can’t rise to the occasion.  However, even if you could train the local MacDonald’s cashier or short order cook to write code for automations, I don’t think it would cover those finding themselves out of a job.

So what’s the answer?  Well, Player Piano is one of the possible consequences.  It describes a society that has a very polarized social strata, with many people deemed “not useful” and therefore marginalized.  You see a similar story in the TV series, “Incorporated” where the engineers live inside walled cities and the majority of society are left to fend in the lawless “Red Zone”.

Another possibility is that we increase the need for productive labor by engaging in a war.  A bonus to this (so to speak) is that it may do a lot to wipe out national deficits and debts as well.

But barring these dystopian solutions, what can we do to adjust our society to cope with automation?  Diametrically opposed to the problem societies mentioned above is, for example, the society envisioned by Star Trek, -a utopian society where technology has solved most of humanities needs and problems, but where people still lead meaningful lives.

I would suggest that the solution involves a whole scale re-evaluation of both our economic and educational systems.

Economically, the answer lies in a guaranteed annual income, already being experimented by some countries like Denmark and Finland.  The idea of a guaranteed minimum income has a long American history, as you can discover if you Wiki it, and has even been spoken well of by conservative pundits like Andre Coyne in Canada (National Post).  In this model, people would have a guaranteed minimum annual income to which they could add through other gainful work.  It would have to be paid for by flattening out the current polarization between the poor, the middle class and the economic elite.  This doesn’t mean eliminating differences in income, nor does it remove the incentive to better your economic situation, but it does recognize that companies are eliminating jobs to increase profits.  You would think that companies would recognize that they may be maneuvering themselves out of a market and towards both an economic and social crisis if they don’t “share the wealth” in some way.

Shorter work weeks may allow more people to be involved in the jobs that survive.  Instead of one person working a 40 hour week (or, as is often the case, more) you might have two people working 20 hour work weeks, but with the same pay.  Yes, that doubles the employee expense for the company, but that company saved the money it put out by automating.  In the end it will still make at least the same profit.  I know they automated so that they would make more profit, and they may still be able to do so, but not with the same impunity that they would have if they simply dismissed half or more of their work force.   I am sure there are ways that could be structured so that everyone would benefit more from automation, -just, perhaps, some not as dramatically.

Then again, these shorter work weeks would produce an excess of free time.  One would hope that people could benefit from this, but the reality probably is that without proper education people may feel aimless and without purpose, or may fall into traps of self gratification that will not be beneficial to anyone.  The role of education has to change.  Not only will it have to adjust its curriculum to the needs of this new social order, but it will have to spend more time educating the person to live rather than just to work.  Much more attention needs to be given to self reflection and self improvement.  A mindset that will encourage things like hobbies, self improvement, lifelong learning, and community service needs to be introduced into the curriculum.  Opportunities for this kind of self improvement have to be built into the system as well as building a sense of empowerment which causes people to engage productively.

These are major paradigm shifts for both economics and education.  Don’t ask me how they will be accomplished, but we don’t really have a lot of time.  We’re very quickly going to make some fundamental decisions to change or to not change.  The result will forge the kind of world we’ll inhabit in less than a quarter of a century.

 

A part of the solution has to be that we try to retain a respect for human endeavour.  Just because a job can be replaced by a robot or computer program doesn’t mean that it has to be.  Corporate striving for the largest profit may dictate that people be replaced with machines, but that doesn’t have to be how it plays out if we engage different economic priorities.  The fact is that when I go to a doctor, I prefer a human being (even if they are assisted by technology).  If I go into a small store, most people enjoy talking to the human owner.  Certainly jobs in teaching, although they might efficiently be replaced by technology, would be better served with human interaction.  Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we have to.  In the Medicine Wheel there’s a stage before doing where you examine your vision and projection of the goal.  Sometimes human priorities related to that vision are more important than the purely efficient and cost effective ones.  Often things that are cost efficient are only successful because there are few alternatives, and they don’t really make anyone happy, worker or customer, other than the ones reaping the profit.

It’s a tall order because many of the required changes require a social evolution that we can only envision on a far horizon.  It may be a question of technology having evolved faster than society, nd faster than what is for our own good.  On the other hand, the adversity and consequences may spark the necessary change, but probably at a huge cost.

 

Oscar Films 2017

More than usual, it seems to me, this year’s nominated movies have mostly come out  in the last month.  A few have just come out in wide distribution, so I haven’t seen all of them.  Here’s what I can tell you:

Of the ones I’ve seen,

“La La Land” lives up to its title completely.  It put me to sleep.  Make no mistake; there are plenty of notable things about this film.  The acting and music and sets and special effects are all great.  But the story is cliché.  Actually I saw it as a parody of a cliché, but that didn’t help.  I know I’m being sacrilegious.  I can’t but wonder if its appeal is tied to the need for something simple and sweet in this complicated and dark time.

“Moonlight” was equally non engaging.  Here, while the theme and plot were attempting to be socially relevant, the pace of the movie was almost surreal.  I don’t think that was necessary in order to make any point, unless they were trying to demonstrate how boring the day to day drudge of life was for the characters.  You have to have more than social relevance to make a good movie.

“Hell or High Water” was a good action film, well made and acted, but certainly not exceptional in any way.  I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed a lot of films this year.

“Manchester By The Sea” was also dragging and non engaging.  I couldn’t warm up to the characters, and didn’t feel that it rose above mediocrity in any way.  Not a bad movie, but certainly not notable.

“Arrival” was, in my view, the best film of the year, but I’d be the first to understand why others wouldn’t think so.  I thought it was all round good, but did drag in some places, partly in an over-enthusiastic attempt to create suspense.  It was novel, though, and surprisingly fresh.  It was definitely an intellectual mystery.

“Hacksaw Ridge” The film is well made with an engaging story, although is a little slow at the beginning.  It tackles some interesting moral issues, though sometimes very awkwardly.  Having the main character advocate the idea of non-violence while surrounded by Mel Gibson’s typical graphic violence and gore creates a contradiction.  Perhaps that’s the idea, and it does end up as a bit disturbing.

 

As for best foreign film, I’m really surprised to see “Land of Mine” on the list.  It is a Danish film about German POWs being forced to dig up land mines after the end of WW2.  I saw it at TIFF 2015, so it’s taken a while to come through the works.  Great film, and though I haven’t seen the other foreign films, I highly recommend this one if you can find a copy with subtitles.

 

I guess that the best film I saw this year was “Captain Fantastic”, which is not nominated.  Anyone who knows me can easily see why.  It revolved around themes and issues that I’m very involved in, and had a very strong social commentary that made you think.  Add to that great performances and settings.  You may not agree with the ideas in this movie, but it will cause you to reflect on them, and I think that’s central in a good film.  It’s surprisingly come up sporadically in many of the pre Oscar award shows, so obviously it is getting some critical acclaim.  “Power to the people.  Stick it to the man.”

 

My Best 2016 Album Picks

This was a year that I was really impressed with lyrics.  I think that given the current social situation music can play an important part in the lyrics that it presents, much like the Hippie or the Punk eras.  There was a time when Rap did that, even if you could tolerate it, but that time is largely long gone with its and Hip Hop’s lyrics having been little more than fluff for quite a while now.  However, there’s been a bounce and maybe 2017 will see better in this area.

 

1. David Bowie – Black Star : I’m not placing this here out of respect or pity or anything other than the fact that I think it is a terrific album. Lyrics, melody and production all come together to make Bowie’s obvious “good-bye” a masterful piece of music.  It’s original, deep and full of emotion.

2. Strumbellas – Hope : I know this is an odd one to put in second place with so many other great albums further down the list, but this is an album that I found myself constantly going back to, impressed with the strength and likeability of almost every song on it.

3. Leonard Cohen – You Want It Darker : And he certainly gave it to you. The melodies have the usual Cohen angst, but it is the lyrics that really captured my attention here.  Like Bowie, this may have been a conscious ‘good-bye’.  Song lyrics are just dripping with dark emotion.

4. Colour of Bubbles – She is the Darkness : Again, a relatively unheard of choice. I’m always impressed by new bands that successfully experiment with new sounds and which just ring out freshly original. I loved their first album and this one does it even a bit better.

5. Conor Oberst – Ruminations : Catchy ballads and more great lyrics. I’ve been an Oberst fan since the Bright Eyes days.  Personally I found his last solo album much better and diverse, but apparently that opinion was not shared by the critics that found this stripped down Oberst much better.  Either way, all good.  The concert was amazing as well.

6. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds – Skeleton Tree : So you can probably see that the downer tone of the year has influenced my choices. Here’s another really deep and moody selection.  Nick Cave is always a class act.

7. The Kills – Ice and Ash : A lot of Alt Rock stuff sounds the same. I listened to I don’t know how many New Wave type groups this year and many of them seem interchangeable.  So it’s nice when one stands out as more fresh and original.

8. Wild Beasts – Boy King : An excellently produced album with strong songs.

9. Drive By Truckers – American Band : I’m not much of a country music fan, but this one is more R&R. What makes it stand out though are the socially relevant lyrics.  I’m hoping this will be the beginning of a trend.  We need more stuff like this from younger bands to galvanize the fight for social justice issues.  (Neil Young’s latest album does that, but I don’t think he has the weight with listeners under 40 that is needed.)

10. Radiohead – Moon Shaped Pool : Took a long time to get into this album. Didn’t appreciate if fully until one time when I ended up listening to it sitting back and half asleep.  I guess that says something about it.

11. Agnes Obel – Great voice and well crafted songs.

12. Car Seat Headrest – Teens of Denial : Another one in the ‘Alt-Rock that rises above mediocrity’ category.

13. Anohni – Hoopelessness : Kind of a slow, experimental, trip hop album with really depression lyrics. Aside from the title track you’ve got some song titles like, “Drone Bomb Me” and “Execution”.  Very clearly preoccupied with social justice issues and stands out from the crowd for that reason and others.  Definately an acquired taste, though.

 

HONORABLE MENTIONS:  Air Traffic Controllers; Bat For Lashes; Dylan LeBlanc; Kongos; Mogwai; Neil Young; Pretenders; Ray LaMontagne; Teenage Fanclub, The Lumineers; and Wilco.

A SILVER LINING TO TRUMP ? – A “CALL TO ARMS”

The events that have led up to and culminated in Trump’s presidency can be a catalyst for a new cultural renaissance similar to the one that occurred in the late 60s and early 70s.  It is a unique opportunity to mobilize an energy of outrage and rebellion among a large portion of society.  Seldom has a political upset resulted in such a strong sense of concern and disbelief.

It is difficult to accurately assess the cultural rebellion of the 60s unless you lived through it.  There is no doubt that it had its detractions and failures.  However, it also produced the seed beginning of such things as women’s rights, minority and civil rights, environmentalism, and eventually gay rights.  Furthermore, it sparked a new way of looking at things like consciousness and a new world that was more inclusive and peaceful.  You’d be right in saying that a lot of this was hypocritical, but that doesn’t matter as these things eventually matured into some real and solid social evolution.

When I look at news reports of current demonstrators promoting one cause or another, whether it be anti-Trump, environmental concerns or Occupy Wall Street, I see the same accusations being used against these demonstrators as was used half a century ago:  “They don’t know what they’re doing and don’t understand what they’re talking about.”  And many of them are spectacularly unable to verbalize and express their points (…and if they are, then the media often goes to great lengths to find those who aren’t to insert into the interview.)  It was the same in the 60s.  The “Hippies” were often depicted as unaware of the important issues and politically naive.  Many of them were.  In any group you are going to have those leaders who combine the intelligence and eloquence to properly explain their point of view.  Many of the others will be at varying points on the intelligence and eloquence spectrum and may have a sense of the big picture or even simply a gut feeling about the justice in what they are doing, but will fall short if pressed to accountability.  That’s not a problem.

The marches still took place and the memes still took hold.  One of the central elements of the 60s revolution was the Viet Nam war, which not only was halted to a great degree by social pressure, but which served to present a broader message of peace and cause people to question the role of the American military industrial machine in the arena of world affairs.  It managed to influence things for a fairly long period of time, up to the period just before and after 9-11.  At that point, though the reality changed, the consciousness still endured in some places, -although the mainstream of government did everything to suppress it and twist it into an anti-American or anti-patriotic stance.   In spite of the shortcomings, the evolution still took place, even if it wasn’t totally successful.

The central memes of the 60s were peace, questioning of authority, tolerance of alternative life styles and expanded consciousness, -all of which had their positive and negative aspects.  The past fifty years has tried to sort out those positives and negatives, and I personally think they done a reasonably good job of doing that.  This was the inception of the post-modern, pluralistic stage of our western society.  (In Integral Theory terms, this signals the shift from orange to green.)  The job is far from finished.

The memes that emerged in the 60s were fashion (importantly including long hair as a central symbol), a musical explosion of creativity often centred around social justice, the drug culture which fed a reinterpretation of the nature of consciousness and perspective, alternative life styles which fed the new Green level meme of pluralism and multiculturalism, and finally the whole idea of questioning authority rather than blindly trusting it.  There was the common saying that, “You can’t trust anyone over 30,” which was a flawed idea but reflected the pervasive sentiment of not trusting the establishment.  Interestingly, many of the leaders of the movement were, in fact, well over 30.

It all came together in a strange cultural mixture that had a huge impact on its time and on decades following.  I feel that the same tinderbox for change exists now.  In the late 70s there was a second wave of reformation in the form of the Punk movement, with many of the same memes that I listed above.  However, it didn’t catch fire with the same intensity because the crisis it was addressing was mainly the feeling that the previous “Hippie” revolution had betrayed them, (which in many ways it had.)  Ironically there was a strong thread of anti-racism in the punk movement, although it was confusingly mixed with messages of violence and fascist memes.

The current opportunity is to solidify that shift towards inclusivity and to perhaps even push the segment of society that is ready into a new stage that is even more inclusive.  (Integral  Theory’s Second Tier levels)  In fact, the huge benefit that we may see from the current situation is a refocus and evolution of all of the Integral Levels.  We have an opportunity to understand more about the pre-rational, pre-modernist element of society which was at the core of electing Trump.  This is a social level that does not base its decisions on reason or respect facts.  It is a level that tends to be highly egocentric (though not necessarily selfish) and nationalistic.  They also have a strong predisposition to project their own shortcomings onto their perceived opponents.  These were the people that Trump appealed to.  They never had a candidate that championed their world view, and probably didn’t often vote in prior elections, but Trump woke them up (although many would say that they should have let sleeping dogs lie).  Chances are they are going to stay woken up now that they’ve tasted political power, at least for a while.  Part of what can be learned from the current mess is that these are people who genuinely feel ignored by the system.  They are, in many cases, justified in their malcontent and if you don’t want them interfering with the running of the ship, you have to do a better job of listening to them and satisfying them.  If not, then they wake up and elect people like Trump.

That’s not to say that all of Trump supporters are in this category.  However they undoubtedly made up a major portion of the original core supporters.  After a while other factors added to their numbers; everything from rebellious fad to party loyalty to conservative opportunism likely played a roll.

The cultural renaissance of the 60s was, as I said, largely in response to the Viet Nam war.  Actually that was the catalyst that ignited the fire.  The fuel for that was several decades of bland conformism peppered by early beat generation rebellion.  It was “Father Knows Best” and “My Three Sons” on TV and “The Sound of Music” in the theatres.

Now, however, there is a real external social crisis which has the power to fuel a new social reformation.  That crisis is personified in the rise of Trump,  but exists more generally in the rise of reactionary ideas in the form of nationalist isolationism and rolling back progress made in the area of civil rights, women’s’ rights and gay rights.  It is the last hurrah of the premodern elements of society, feeling intimidated by the progress of the world and latching onto current problems to emphasize that fear.  In doing so, they push aside reason and pluralism, digging deep trenches in their own traditional and largely egocentric world view, but still taking full advantage of modern technology to spread false information and practice confirmation bias.  It is the rise of people who had remained dormant for a long time, perhaps feeling powerless.  It is the rise of a people of limited education and sophistication, prime targets for the misinformation wielded by those specializing in media communication.

This is the scenario in which a new rebellion, revolution and reformation is poised to take place.  The outrage and real emotional terror at the Trump win by more than half of the population and especially by those who consider themselves as progressives, is unprecedented.  It is not the usual grief that one’s party lost.  It is a genuine dismay at the loss of an entire way of life or view of what it is to be American, -or in fact just a reasonable human being.  It is a frustration that simple logical arguments that should be done deals are refuted by right wing talking heads who spew illogical nonsense and outright lies, having no respect for facts.

The demographic in the reformation of the 60s was youth.  The demographic of the current rebellion has to be those progressives who respect reason and intelligence (the formal Orange level of Integral Theory) but also the principles of integrity and tolerance (the Green level).  This wouldn’t be an age based demographic, but I believe that it could be even more powerful than age driven evolution ever was.  I believe that there are even people who voted for Trump who would be sympathetic to if not active in such a cultural reassessment.  The kind of mess and free for all that the media has turned into must be concerning to them as well.  It won’t be long before, as was with Brexit, there arises a little “buyer’s remorse” when the Trump administration doesn’t turn out to be as advertized.

It needs cultural memes to hook onto.  “Make America Smart Again”, “Make America Sane Again”, “Facts Matter”,  “It’s OK to be smart!” and the general integrity of reasoning and expertise need to the brought forward.  Key fights, such as Climate Change need to be front and centre, both to champion good science, but also to promote a new era of environmentalism born out of dire necessity.  Reverence for the outdoors, such as what’s happening at    need to become priorities and high profile.  Concerns like those expressed in “Last Child in the Woods” by Richard Louv or expressed in films like “Captain Fantastic” need to be addressed as to whether we are raising children in a world isolated by reality and socialized to play video games, with superficial Internet analyses and information.  In addition to a reverence for Nature, let’s also encourage a reverence for reality.  The word “authentic” was an important one in the 60s.  Let’s encourage authentic relationships, families, group activities, friendships.  Let’s encourage an authentic life.

I’ve already seen a trend towards music that highlights social justice, authenticity and environmental issues.  Think back to the power of songs like CSN&Ys “Ohio”.  Rap music started with that aim, but got badly sidetracked.  It needs to realign itself with its original values and there needs to be music other than rap with those same values (for those of us who have trouble relating to rap).  Hip-Hop has become largely glitz and glamour, echoing the mediocrity of Disco.  It needs to become relevant, not just an “opium for the masses”.  Even in the fringes of country music, I’ve heard bands like The Drive By Truckers who have put some real social commentary teeth in their newest album.

Movies have also been active in this area.  This year’s TIFF slate was enormously heavy with films dedicated to social commentary.  There were films about immigrants, gay issues, cultural issues, etc.  The landmark movies of the 60s revolution were films like “Apocalypse Now” which really questioned the war effort in Viet Nam, and “Altered States” which opened up whole new horizons in the question of consciousness or “The Graduate” which opened doors of discourse around sexuality.  Movies can play a very important part in this kind of social evolution, but they need to be popularly accessible (while retaining quality) if they are going to reach a wider audience.

In the 60s the counter culture saturated society.  It was easier because of the baby boom bubble creaing a great market from which it could profit.  I think that a similar market could exist now, only with a progressive bubble rather than a baby boom one.  There are all sorts of progressively moral people who are eager to act on and display their personal values.  They just need an opportunity.  I’ve many times advocated a campaign where places of business would display “We serve everyone,” signs so that those who have corresponding values can make a point of giving those businesses their patronage.  People would feel good about making that sort of statement.

One of the issues that always seems to come out of the gun control debates is that of mental health.  One of the priorities of this new renaissance has to be a concern with mental health.  This has to happen not only for those who have critical issues, making sure they don’t fall through the cracks, but also just in general terms.  Introspection and “mindfulness” skills should be addressed and eventually taught in schools.  These new awareness skill might even make a dent in the whole “virtual world/video game” issue that often prevents authentic connection to reality.  (I want to make clear here that I’m not in opposition to technology, but just want to strike a balance so that more genuine an engaged relationships with reality can be encouraged.  Virtual experiences might actually be useful in treating mental illnesses and in expanding consciousness.  Just not at the expense of reality.)

These fights need to be fought on every front and issue.  The anti-rational, anti-intellectual, anti-expert sentiment must be addressed at every opportunity.  Cases have to be made for modern and post modern values, but with the caviat that there has to be a recognition and accommodation for the pre-rational or concrete rational.  To ignore them would be like ignoring a child.  You don’t do what they say all the time, and you certainly don’t assume their advice to be correct.  But you don’t ignore them either, and you respect them for what they are, encouraging and accommodating them when it makes sense.

And one of the most important things that this renaissance needs to do is to usher in an atmosphere of integrity, but for all of the people including the ones that see themselves outside of this rebellion.  If the Trump supporters are not included in the plan, it would be dangerous and, frankly, unfair.  That doesn’t mean that society defer to them and what they consider to be their moral compass.  Honestly, if all people abided by the standards advocated by the Red core that supported Trump, we would be living in the early 1900s.  If the experts and professionals that these people hold in such distain were to disappear, they wouldn’t have their cell phones, tv shows and other toys.  This sounds kind of like Ayn Rand’s withdrawal of service by the elite class in “Atlas Shrugged”, but that’s not what I’m supporting, -although that might be a necessary segway.   Rand’s reaction was more “I’ll show you!” than “I’ll try to understand and work with you.”  This is a tall order, but the first stage is the all important step of regaining social respect for reason, education and expertise.  A element of society has chosen to devalue these for their own personal and selfish reasons, and that is one of the main things that has led to the rise of misinformation on the Internet and a post-fact world.  Education is extremely important, but that is challenging when some people are actually suspicious of education.

Part of this is the constant talk and attack of “elites”.  Who are “elites”?  In many cases they’re just a catch all phrase for anyone that doesn’t agree with you.  Opposed to the idea of climate change?  Then the experts, scientists and people generally educated to be knowledgeable on the subject are a threat.  How do you deal with it?  Label them “elites” along with a generous helping of connation and vague ideas of derision, and you’ve instantly solved your problem.  If everyone who might disagree with you is an elite, then you don’t have to present a logical argument to defend your position.  “You think you’re so smart just because you have an education,” is a crazy accusation that I’ve personally heard many times.

Every reasonable voice needs to rise up and not accept the normalization of this “new world”.  It’s not a new world, it’s a very old one.  When ignorance and incompetence manage somehow to take over, you don’t say, “Let’s give them a chance.”  When a wrestling promoter is made Secretary of Small Business, a climate change denier the head of the EPA, and a person who thinks that an entire religion is corrupt and violent, then it’s time to act, not wait.  It is time to expose and expose and expose, hoping that some of it will stick.  It’s time to use the opportunity to reframe the situation as much as you possibly can by shaking it up over and over.  Ironically, that’s what Trump claimed he was going to do before creating an administration simply entranched the status quo and special interests, while overtly rewarding those who were “loyal” to him whether or not they are deserving of their new positions.  The goal was correct enough; lots of things needed to be shaken up.  Both Trump and Saunders were in the same ballpark in that regard.  But Trump is striking out while buying the umpire to claim “winning”.

It’s really a political version of The Emperor’s New Clothes.  We need lots of people to call out this tin emperor.

IS TRUMP CORRECT ABOUT MEDIA BIAS?

The short answer is “yes and no”, but I offer the following three points for explanation.

1. The big complaint that the Trump campaign has right now is that the media is paying too much attention to all of the sensational things that Trump is saying in his rallies and is ignoring the substantive things. However, the media has always been characterized as being drawn to sensational things.  I’m reminded of the old newspaper adage which states, “Dog bites man is not a worthy story.  Now, man bites dog…”  Trump succeeds in biting dogs on a regular basis, and when you say ten things and one of them is outrageously sensational or controversial then you can only expect that this will receive disproportional attention.  As it should.  If you are running for president and you embed one outrageous statement among a slew of others, that one statement still speaks to your integrity.  You can speak to all the wonderful things you might have done on a previous day and then, among them, state that you kicked a puppy.  What do you think is going to be noted and talked about?  As it should.  It speaks to integrity, and whatever you may say on policy, integrity is (forgive the pun) a trump card.

 

2. However, speaking of policy being included in speeches and rallies, one of the reasons that the media doesn’t report on it for Trump is that it is extremely meagre. “You pay attention to that one statement and ignore the rest,” is the standard complaint.  I’ve paid attention to Trump speeches, and the fact is that with few exceptions Trump has remained true to his Primary strategy of providing lots of assertions but very little substance.  How will you help minorities?  By making this the best economy ever.  How will you stop ISIS?  Not telling you is the best tactic.  How will you help the country?  By making America great again.  How will you improve health care?  By getting rid of what we’ve got and replacing it with something better.  The fact is that there’s not much substance to report, and what little there is such as allowing people to shop across borders for health insurance, is covered to the degree that they can along with the appropriate critical commentary.  On the other hand, while still lacking substance in many areas, the Clinton side of the discussion is providing far more substance to report and discuss.  This has been evident in the three Presidential Candidate debates.  Simplistic and blanket assertions are difficult to report with any kind of rigor.  Especially when allegations of being a sexual predator are looming in the background.

 

3. In spite of this, I do believe that there is a lot of media bias in many areas. I, for example, would like to hear more details about some of the accusations against Clinton.  Not the Benghazi and email server stuff.  That, you have to admit, has been covered to death and certainly does not support any contention about media bias in her favour.  But there are many other issues connected to her foundation and recently emerging emails that deserve scrutiny, whether justified or unjustified.  With regard, for example, to the accusation of her having “attacked viciously” the 13 year old rape victim when defending her assailant, a little digging reveals a fantastic story of a totally botched prosecution.  It was a great story, but why did I have to dig for an hour in order to uncover it?  I’d like to hear a more substantive analysis of the whole “pay for play” scandal.  I suspect there’s little to it, being much more smoke than fire or poor timing rather than actual criminal intent, but I don’t know, because CNN is so busy talking about Trump, that there’s little time to actually examine and disentangle these issues.  I watch enough news that I should know as much about Clinton’s issues as I do Trump’s, but the fact is that I don’t.  Here’s a web page that presents a lot of the Clinton controversies and debunks them, but I’d love to see the questions debated seriously so that I can confirm that these are the full stories.  I suspect there’s at least a little more to them than is being presented in this article.

And then there’s the whole Bernie Sanders thing.  There was no question that for the first half of his campaign he was deliberately ignored by the media.  It should be a huge embarrassment for them.  I remember one Sunday morning, after reading about a huge Sanders rally on the Internet, it got five seconds on CNN.  And when they put up a picture of him, someone had accidentally put Hilary Clinton’s name underneath it.  This was on a morning where Clinton got a fair bit of coverage, but, of course, Trump was the poster boy.  Trump, if anything, has received so much free exposure from the media that claiming their bias against him now is nothing but laughable.

 

And therein lies one of the most important things that the media needs to soul search about after this circus is over.  They have done a very poor journalistic job of covering the issues in this election.  Time and time again I’ve seen discussions on CNN cut off to go to break just when they’ve begun to become substantive.  And CNN is far from the only culprit.  They are just the most obvious ones because they seem to suffer from some sort of ADD where they are incapable of concentrating on more than one issue at a time.  They took the bait when Trump was just too outrageous to ignore in the Primary, helped create a monster, and now has to deal with it.  They often claim, with justification, the exact same thing of the Republican Party, but miss the fact that they are equally guilty themselves.  It was, I admit, an easy trap to fall into, but now there needs to be an effort to learn from the mistakes.

 

There are two good things that can potentially come out of this debacle of an election campaign.  The first is for the media to examine their own role in that debacle and to reassert or redefine the role of journalism in enlightening the people rather than chasing ratings.  The second is to recognize that the Trump supporters are real and need to be factored into the overall situation.  The hard core Trump supporters are a faction that has long been dormant in American politics and found a crusader in Trump at a time when frustration with the Federal government was particularly high and when the Republican party and media were all too ready to fan the flames (before discovering that they couldn’t control the fire).