It has been in my mind for some time that the reason governments are making such seemingly callous and destructive decisions, that damage instead of support their communities, is because they no longer have any use for us. Up until industrialisatin they needed workers for their fields and bodies for their armies, after industrialisation they needed workers for their factories and bodies for their armies, now they have no need for bodies at all - they have robots for their factories and drones for their armies. They have amassed big enough fortunes to have no need for workers to buy their goods - they just need rid of us so they can use up the rest of the resources. The sooner we all die the better.
“The final convulsion” of living outside of nature but in dominance… in USA it is my hope this view will convulse and leave. Yet, it likely will not. The scarcity mentality when you have too much already is one symptom. Yet, we must learn how to not allow our resources to be abused /used/ stolen so we do not lose our soul…that is not theirs for taking. Sit by the river…!
Laura, thank you for your beautiful words, even in the face of such a heavy topic. Yes, to all of them. Change begins right where we are. What we choose and how we act becomes what we see unfold.
There was a major backlash by tycoons and the politicians that are owned by them in the USA against the efforts of people like Ralph Nader, starting just before Reaganism got off the ground. While not specifically focused on environmentalism, Nader’s work was threatening to expose a lot of corporate shenanigans and the powers that be decided that they had to shut this guy up because he was informing the public of what was going on in the automotive and petroleum industries, among others. There was a conspiracy to keep Nader and his Raiders from testifying before Congress and to keep them from having a voice in the media. For a short time there was hope that lawmakers would crack down on manufacturers of dangerous products and industries that were spewing millions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and the water system. But they took away his voice and the rest is, sadly, history. There was also a conspiracy to destroy feminism during the Reagan Administration, which was detailed in the excellent book “Backlash” by Susan Faludi.
Thanks, Rafael. I appreciate you taking the time to share this background. I see some overlapping historical threads there, though I tend to focus less on specific conspiracies and more on the systemic dynamics that made such backlashes possible — the way economic interests, media narratives, and social fears reinforce each other throughout history. That’s the layer I try to explore in my work.
I know that you were for the most part, musing; But I'm here to tell you and affirm that your musings are the reality in America that I have 'known' about for a few decades now. Dominion and control are at the very basis of it all. I've known that for decades and have collected facts in evidence and experiences to that supposition. Alas; I can't afford an attorney to pursue justice, and elected representatives have ignored my entreaties. ** It's so entirely frustrating, I feel, yet again the need to isolate and have a really good cry.
Thank you, D4N — yes, I let my thoughts flow freely, and still, they come from a place of long observation and study. I’ve spent over five decades watching, reading, learning, and yes — also studying economics. So even when it sounds like musing, it’s a musing informed by experience.
I understand the frustration you describe. Dominion and control really do seem to sit at the root of the American story — written right into the founding ideals. The libertarian streak that prizes individual freedom above all else leaves almost no room for duty of care, and that absence shows everywhere now.
And yet, I keep noticing small glimmers elsewhere — imperfect, yes, but real. Countries that begin to imagine economies built around community, reciprocity, and protection of the living world. They remind me that another direction is possible, even if we don’t know yet what it looks like.
I concur: it’s heartbreaking. Sometimes it does end in tears. And maybe those tears are part of what keeps us human in a system that tries to turn everything, even grief, into a transaction.
I'm similarly informed; Five decades is about right, and a student of economics as well. Also, as something of a neurodivergent, I notice too much; Far too much. I have felt that libertarianism to be more akin to incomplete thought if applied to governance. It might work fine as a personal credo, but unworkable as any functioning model of governance. Perhaps I should give a bit more time to study of libertarianism. It held so little attraction for me, I could only bear skimming through it. I've more or less just dismissed it as "gop lite" and merely a distraction between ideologies, at least as it's practiced here in the U.S. Come to think of it just now though, I did get into a dust-up with a former friend who's attitudes and arguments betrayed a lot of elements of libertarianism. Hmm.
** Your allusions to libertarianism has caused me to muse a bit further. In the abstract world libertarianism works out just fine and results in a world that's all butterflies and sunshine; At least until it collides with reality, which doesn't give a damn about high thinking. All would have to be compelled into homogeneity, an impossibility in most countries, and most definitely unworkable in the U.S.
Libertarianism first caught my attention from a philosophical angle, when I stumbled over the tension between relational and individual dignity. From there, I noticed the unbridged divide between Communitarianism, which underlies most democracies, and Libertarianism, which shapes only the U.S.
That realization struck me deeply — because the American understanding of dignity is fundamentally individual. It calls for maximum autonomy and freedom of the individual, the kind embodied in rugged individualism. In contrast, relational dignity arises only within belonging. It’s the kind you experience in a family or a genuine partnership — where care flows because you’re part of something, not because you’ve earned it.
That’s why every democracy except the U.S. has universal healthcare.
Why in Germany and many others, civil rights are built into the constitutional framework rather than added later.
And why those governments carry an explicit duty of care, while the American constitution mainly limits government interference with the individual.
The result is paradoxical: the individual — so praised and protected — is also left alone to fend for themselves. Life becomes competition, each person climbing toward the top of an ever-shrinking food chain.
In Communitarian systems, the social component stands at the center. The individual has to comply, yes — the state sets conditions — but by law, everyone has a right to be cared for by the community. No one is meant to be abandoned, not even outsiders. That’s the principle, even if practice often falls short.
Neither model is ideal. The duty of care is supposed to be unconditional, and yet it isn’t anymore — partly because Western democracies tried to imitate the U.S. without realizing how incompatible the American system actually is. The American superiority complex helped spread the illusion.
Now imagine all those who come to the U.S. chasing the “American Dream.” They arrive from societies shaped, knowingly or not, by Communitarian values — where mutual care is assumed. They expect to find something similar. But in America, that care exists only in small communities — queer, Latinx, Polish, Cuban, German, church-based, or the modern “workplace family.” Never from the government.
And when the government dismantles even those minimal structures of care — like Obamacare — it’s not an accident. The system was never built for that. The American model rests on exploitation, and that’s where my musing began.
This really spoke to me. All are one. The great sages have spoken this truth since the beginning of time but there are many reasons people have willfully denied this truth. Thank you for challenging the norms of the day by reminding us all that neither we nor the natural world are resources to be exploited or capitalized upon. There is a better way!
I still remember when I first recognized "the big lie." It was a few years before covid and I had been struggling with a deep existential anxiety around my idea of purpose. I understood that there was a split between what I wanted for myself and what society wanted for me, but I couldn't quite grasp it. Then like a bolt from the blue it hit me that my purpose was to consume, work, consume more, work more, die. My anxious resistance to this cycle wasn't a moral failing it was an awakening from life long conditioning into the cult of consumerism.
I often feel shocked by how viciously people defend "the big lie" but I think it's hard for people to admit how much they've given of themselves in exchange for so little. It's easier to hate those who see than it is to see the truths hidden in plain sight. The mighty taboo.
Thank you for this layered comment and sharing so openly. I appreciate you. Yes, that moment of seeing—the quiet horror wrapped in relief—when the cycle reveals itself for what it is. It’s not rebellion, it’s remembering. The body often knows long before the mind dares to name it. What you describe feels like crossing from obedience into awareness, where anxiety turns into agency.
It has been in my mind for some time that the reason governments are making such seemingly callous and destructive decisions, that damage instead of support their communities, is because they no longer have any use for us. Up until industrialisatin they needed workers for their fields and bodies for their armies, after industrialisation they needed workers for their factories and bodies for their armies, now they have no need for bodies at all - they have robots for their factories and drones for their armies. They have amassed big enough fortunes to have no need for workers to buy their goods - they just need rid of us so they can use up the rest of the resources. The sooner we all die the better.
I would agree that is the disconnected heart of those on top… may we live fully in our space not on top:)
Jennifer, I did not want to write it so drastically and still, that thought has indeed crossed my mind, too.
bloody depressing.
“The final convulsion” of living outside of nature but in dominance… in USA it is my hope this view will convulse and leave. Yet, it likely will not. The scarcity mentality when you have too much already is one symptom. Yet, we must learn how to not allow our resources to be abused /used/ stolen so we do not lose our soul…that is not theirs for taking. Sit by the river…!
Laura, thank you for your beautiful words, even in the face of such a heavy topic. Yes, to all of them. Change begins right where we are. What we choose and how we act becomes what we see unfold.
I appreciate the river vision… its freshness, cleansing, flexing to the easiest flow… gratitude
Laura. I love that the river speaks to you this way. Its movement holds everything I wished to express—ease, renewal, and quiet strength.
There was a major backlash by tycoons and the politicians that are owned by them in the USA against the efforts of people like Ralph Nader, starting just before Reaganism got off the ground. While not specifically focused on environmentalism, Nader’s work was threatening to expose a lot of corporate shenanigans and the powers that be decided that they had to shut this guy up because he was informing the public of what was going on in the automotive and petroleum industries, among others. There was a conspiracy to keep Nader and his Raiders from testifying before Congress and to keep them from having a voice in the media. For a short time there was hope that lawmakers would crack down on manufacturers of dangerous products and industries that were spewing millions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and the water system. But they took away his voice and the rest is, sadly, history. There was also a conspiracy to destroy feminism during the Reagan Administration, which was detailed in the excellent book “Backlash” by Susan Faludi.
Thanks, Rafael. I appreciate you taking the time to share this background. I see some overlapping historical threads there, though I tend to focus less on specific conspiracies and more on the systemic dynamics that made such backlashes possible — the way economic interests, media narratives, and social fears reinforce each other throughout history. That’s the layer I try to explore in my work.
Excellent. I love listening to your exquisite English with your German accent.
So much in here to comment on.
Thank you well done
Prajna, thank you. Glad it gave you something to ponder. I appreciate you.
I know that you were for the most part, musing; But I'm here to tell you and affirm that your musings are the reality in America that I have 'known' about for a few decades now. Dominion and control are at the very basis of it all. I've known that for decades and have collected facts in evidence and experiences to that supposition. Alas; I can't afford an attorney to pursue justice, and elected representatives have ignored my entreaties. ** It's so entirely frustrating, I feel, yet again the need to isolate and have a really good cry.
Thank you, D4N — yes, I let my thoughts flow freely, and still, they come from a place of long observation and study. I’ve spent over five decades watching, reading, learning, and yes — also studying economics. So even when it sounds like musing, it’s a musing informed by experience.
I understand the frustration you describe. Dominion and control really do seem to sit at the root of the American story — written right into the founding ideals. The libertarian streak that prizes individual freedom above all else leaves almost no room for duty of care, and that absence shows everywhere now.
And yet, I keep noticing small glimmers elsewhere — imperfect, yes, but real. Countries that begin to imagine economies built around community, reciprocity, and protection of the living world. They remind me that another direction is possible, even if we don’t know yet what it looks like.
I concur: it’s heartbreaking. Sometimes it does end in tears. And maybe those tears are part of what keeps us human in a system that tries to turn everything, even grief, into a transaction.
I'm similarly informed; Five decades is about right, and a student of economics as well. Also, as something of a neurodivergent, I notice too much; Far too much. I have felt that libertarianism to be more akin to incomplete thought if applied to governance. It might work fine as a personal credo, but unworkable as any functioning model of governance. Perhaps I should give a bit more time to study of libertarianism. It held so little attraction for me, I could only bear skimming through it. I've more or less just dismissed it as "gop lite" and merely a distraction between ideologies, at least as it's practiced here in the U.S. Come to think of it just now though, I did get into a dust-up with a former friend who's attitudes and arguments betrayed a lot of elements of libertarianism. Hmm.
** Your allusions to libertarianism has caused me to muse a bit further. In the abstract world libertarianism works out just fine and results in a world that's all butterflies and sunshine; At least until it collides with reality, which doesn't give a damn about high thinking. All would have to be compelled into homogeneity, an impossibility in most countries, and most definitely unworkable in the U.S.
D4N, we seem to have quite a bit in common.
Libertarianism first caught my attention from a philosophical angle, when I stumbled over the tension between relational and individual dignity. From there, I noticed the unbridged divide between Communitarianism, which underlies most democracies, and Libertarianism, which shapes only the U.S.
That realization struck me deeply — because the American understanding of dignity is fundamentally individual. It calls for maximum autonomy and freedom of the individual, the kind embodied in rugged individualism. In contrast, relational dignity arises only within belonging. It’s the kind you experience in a family or a genuine partnership — where care flows because you’re part of something, not because you’ve earned it.
That’s why every democracy except the U.S. has universal healthcare.
Why in Germany and many others, civil rights are built into the constitutional framework rather than added later.
And why those governments carry an explicit duty of care, while the American constitution mainly limits government interference with the individual.
The result is paradoxical: the individual — so praised and protected — is also left alone to fend for themselves. Life becomes competition, each person climbing toward the top of an ever-shrinking food chain.
In Communitarian systems, the social component stands at the center. The individual has to comply, yes — the state sets conditions — but by law, everyone has a right to be cared for by the community. No one is meant to be abandoned, not even outsiders. That’s the principle, even if practice often falls short.
Neither model is ideal. The duty of care is supposed to be unconditional, and yet it isn’t anymore — partly because Western democracies tried to imitate the U.S. without realizing how incompatible the American system actually is. The American superiority complex helped spread the illusion.
Now imagine all those who come to the U.S. chasing the “American Dream.” They arrive from societies shaped, knowingly or not, by Communitarian values — where mutual care is assumed. They expect to find something similar. But in America, that care exists only in small communities — queer, Latinx, Polish, Cuban, German, church-based, or the modern “workplace family.” Never from the government.
And when the government dismantles even those minimal structures of care — like Obamacare — it’s not an accident. The system was never built for that. The American model rests on exploitation, and that’s where my musing began.
This really spoke to me. All are one. The great sages have spoken this truth since the beginning of time but there are many reasons people have willfully denied this truth. Thank you for challenging the norms of the day by reminding us all that neither we nor the natural world are resources to be exploited or capitalized upon. There is a better way!
Thank you so much. I value your comment Stephanie. Yes, indigenous cultures have lived that all along, they can lead the way back.
AMEN.
I still remember when I first recognized "the big lie." It was a few years before covid and I had been struggling with a deep existential anxiety around my idea of purpose. I understood that there was a split between what I wanted for myself and what society wanted for me, but I couldn't quite grasp it. Then like a bolt from the blue it hit me that my purpose was to consume, work, consume more, work more, die. My anxious resistance to this cycle wasn't a moral failing it was an awakening from life long conditioning into the cult of consumerism.
I often feel shocked by how viciously people defend "the big lie" but I think it's hard for people to admit how much they've given of themselves in exchange for so little. It's easier to hate those who see than it is to see the truths hidden in plain sight. The mighty taboo.
Thank you for this layered comment and sharing so openly. I appreciate you. Yes, that moment of seeing—the quiet horror wrapped in relief—when the cycle reveals itself for what it is. It’s not rebellion, it’s remembering. The body often knows long before the mind dares to name it. What you describe feels like crossing from obedience into awareness, where anxiety turns into agency.