A speechwriting exercise: Working together for a better world

(Inspired by TEDx Verona talk “Speak like a leader”, Simon Lancaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGBamfWasNQ) ... and something from Wayne Swan)

Life is tough; life is a struggle; making ends meet has never been further away.

When life is so hard, it is so appealing, so attractive, so tempting, when someone promises to take the load off, to make it all go away, to make life as easy as it once seemed to be.

It is so appealing that we all become vulnerable.

We risk becoming like someone dying of thirst in a desert who sees the mirage of an oasis.

We could be that person dying of thirst on an ocean, who drinks salt water.

We could be like the alcoholic who turns to a lighter fluid, out of desperation.

Lighter fluid is great for lighting, but not for quenching thirst.

Giving responsibility to specialists with greater skills, like doctors or tax accountants or engineers, is good - in their fields. Giving away responsibility for our quality of life, on the other hand, is not.

The truth is life is complicated.

Running a modern economy, with all its connections to other world economies, is complicated.

A government for millions, with all the measurement and management and accountability, is technical, tedious, and incredibly challenging.

And taking our part in the slow, lengthy, sometimes tedious path to making our lives better is also incredibly challenging.

But it is the only way to be sure that we have a real chance of an improvement to our lives that lasts longer than an election cycle, that our children get to inherit a better world than we did, and that humans will still be here, in a meaningful way, in a million years.

This prospect is terrifying – it requires skills that we fear we do not have, it requires us to muster reserves of energy when we’re already exhausted, it requires us to persevere past disappointments.

But we’re not alone.

Others also want a better life for themselves, for their children, for the world.

Allow ourselves to admit the possibility of goodwill in ourselves, the possibility of goodwill in others, and the possibility of working together with good intentions, and we can share our energies and skills, and help each other through the hard times.

We need to collect ourselves and to collectivise, before we can collect our gains.

It won’t be easy: allowing goodwill requires listening with a willingness to learn and to change, but that is the first step in making the world a better place.

(This verges on the sort of writing and speech that I deliberately tend to avoid or minimise – I prefer to present the principles / arguments, and let those “speak for themselves” . . . which relies upon the audience having enough nounce to see through rhetoric-rich responses.)

Are modern, middle class Westerners cowards?

Are modern, middle class Westerners cowards?

Although I have touched on this before, I’ve been moved to write more after watching a documentary about the so-called “Peasants Revolt” in England in 1381 (YouTube here and here).

Despite the name given to that event, it was actually led by people who would be the closest equivalent there was to a middle class in that era – even including a Member of Parliament. These people are often described as seeking justice over taxes, but the triggers also involved tax collectors basically groping young women to see if they were married (the assumption being that only married women would not be virgins, and married women had to pay an extra tax). They were outraged by these sexual assaults (not mentioned in Wikipedia’s insipid article: is that because men wrote it?), and their reactions to that were the first steps in an event that wound up involving marches on London and unrest elsewhere in England, and a violent suppression.

They were courageous, but eventually some of their members “went too far”, with common thievery becoming violent vengeance, with murder and ransacking.

It went off the rails, and that has lessons in it around managing any movement, including controlling supporters. To be fair, I suspect the closest any large movement has come to being able to ensure its followers were behaving properly would probably be Gandhi’s satyagraha-inspired Indian independence movement. (When I was watching the YouTube documentaries, I idly speculated about Gandhi possibly having been either part of, or a witness to, the Peasants Revolt in an earlier life, and that it going so spectacularly off the rails helped give him the impetus to be non-violent.)

Management of followers is easier if the group is small – for instance, the team I was part of that was lobbying for reform of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act in the late 1990s was able to be so effective because, using the advice we were getting from our contacts in the various political parties, we could tell our supporters when to back off on letters and emails because it was becoming counterproductive (as it was annoying recipients – there can be a reaction against events such as writing campaigns, or street marches [the evil  Maggie Thatcher is an example of that]).

Nevertheless, for most larger movements, the consequences of what one says to followers can be significant – such as the violent and vicious assaults inspired by neochristian homophobia, or the equally violent and vicious racism inspired by racist “dog whistling” politicians. (I firmly consider all such people are accountable for the actions and reactions they inspire, and that, in Australia, goes back to the evil John Howard, who started the current xenophobic rot of Australian society and morality, a rot that is being enthusiastically spread by MPs such as Peter Dutton. Howard’s motivations are often ascribed to nostalgia – wanting to go back to the 1950s when blissful ignorance meant most people were unaware of the suffering that then existed: I think it was the more prosaic quest to keep power.)

Going back to the Middle Class (so-called Peasants) Revolt, I compare their reaction to the largely bland submission in response to outrages such as the groping by airport security, and have to wonder: has fear robbed us of the capacity to resist the unacceptable?

Unquestionably, some in the middle class (and upper class, looking back at some of the social movements in the 19ths and early 20^th centuries) are (and were) brave – and I am referring to moral courage, as shown by things like standing up against the invasion of Iraq. In our society, which has had millennia of, perhaps, too much unbalanced hero mythology, physical courage tends to be what is recognised and revered – even when both form of courage are present, as was the case with the Gandhi-inspired march against the Dharasana salt works, it is the physical courage that tends to be recognised, not the moral courage that was at least equally present.

Opportunities to have moral courage crop up many times in life – from resisting peer pressure at school, through conscientious objection  (this was a new aspect of this topic for me; see also this, on Israelis who object to some aspects of service) and not acceding to group think in companies, to social progressivism. Those who choose to be courageous are even more deserving of admiration given the lack of recognition – which is only emphasised by the recognition given to some for their physical courage, e.g., William Coltman and Desmond Doss.

There are situations where I consider courage should be moderated – for instance, if one has a young baby or toddler, going off to get arrested is perhaps not appropriate (especially in a situation where there is no support, as is often the case in developing nations).

However, some of those failing to show courage are simply lackeys of the oligarchs/elites – the hangers on that enable despots like Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Putin, Erdogan, etc to stay in power. Every manager who takes a hard line view of “having” to cut costs is one of their agents - and is a coward. The brave thing is to be objective, and don’t follow orders simply to curry the favour of bosses (who are themselves currying favour of their higher ups, etc).

In fact, as far as workplace courage goes, in my opinion union busters and mass sackers are like those who ran the concentration camps – there is nothing courageous about them, as they are simply implementing the wishes of their bosses and ignoring the suffering that is in their faces.

Now, some middle class people think they’re brave – e.g., parents (yes, I have seen parents flaunt their alleged bravery). Those middle class people are often wrong – and certainly parents are wrong, as being a parent is difficult, but that often doesn’t involve courage (sometimes it can - e.g., major illness, a “troubled child”, etc). What I consider more courageous than being a parent is standing up against pressure to have a child in this era of overpopulation and over-consumption by a minority of the world’s population.

In other areas of society, working and lower classes have often provided cannon fodder for army, so they certainly have physical courage. Many I have known have also had moral courage.

On physical courage, adrenaline junkies are not courageous: they’re addicted to adrenaline – I count them as the same as people who like horror movies. Their reactions to one of theirs who dies also suggests that they’re not actually expecting to die, so they aren’t same as soldiers.

Another aspect here is that courage can be misplaced. As an example, the undoubted courage shown by British soldiers at Rorke’s Drift does not compensate for the fact that those soldiers were part of an army violently invading and occupying another people’s land. Another example, an example of misplaced moral courage, is those who are homophobic/transphobic because of religious dogma - and I point out that such dogma often led to racism [including slavery] and sexism, until people started to oppose that for a range of reasons, including religious.

So, overall, I consider that there are signs of courage, and of wanting to be brave (albeit sometimes mixed up with other flaws) in most of what I’ve mentioned. People may not have met my standards of courage, but they want to be – the hanger-on may genuinely be motivated by wanting to stand up against pressure (it’s misplaced, in my view, but is probably worth acknowledging). The middle class people talking about the courage needed for everyday life are really, in my experience, talking about what lower and working class people go through, but they are showing that they consider courage to be an admirable thing, something they would like to have. There are also specific examples of courage, such as anti-war movement, current campaigns against underpayment (it takes courage to openly stand against one’s employer), and animal rights activists - some of whom make the mistake of going too far – I have only started to appreciate in recent years just how important it is to take followers with one on a journey of growth.

The courage is there – its latency waiting to be drawn out, perhaps by a noble cause and truly inspiring leaders, and with the sort of action – including good old-fashioned consciousness raising -that will help those who are currently fearful to realise their better selves, and to help shift the focus from physical to moral courage.

Journalists are not the enemy

Journalists are not the enemy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ym4ZueXT3w&feature=em-uploademail

The new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

The United Nations has appointed a woman who is a survivor of torture as the new High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Michelle Bachelet was President of Chile twice (in 2006 to 2010, and 2014 to 2018 [the Chilean Constitution prevents Presidents serving two consecutive terms, which is an interesting idea]), the first woman to hold that position, and reelected in 2014 with over 62% of the vote, bettering the 53.5% she obtained in 2006.

Prior to being elected President, she served as Health Minister, in which role she reduced waiting lists by 90% and made the "morning after" pill available, and Defense Minister, where she improved pensions, continued modernising the military, and "promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that "never again" would the military subvert democracy in Chile".

From her Wikipedia bio, she appears to have been socially progressive and financially cautious - "resisting calls from politicians from her own coalition to spend the huge copper revenues to close the country’s income gap.[34][71] Instead in 2007 she created the Economic and Social Stabilization Fund, a sovereign wealth fund which accumulates fiscal surpluses which are above 1% of GDP.[72] This allowed her to finance new social policies and provide economic stimulus packages when the 2008 financial crisis hit the country". She faced political challenges, a scandal around one Minister, criticism for responding too slowly to a major earthquake, continued her predecessor's free trade agreements, visited Cuba (which backfired when Castro criticised Chile), and international challenges - although the OECD invited Chile to join under her Presidency.

In her second term, she fought for - and won - reform of education, tax and reform, and for same sex civil unions, a protected area around Easter Island, improved women's rights (including some abortion rights), voting and political rights. After he son and daughter-in-law were caught in an influence-peddling scandal, she implemented reforms which ultimately contributed to her loss of popularity.

Based on her political record, it seems that Ms Bachelet has been effective, largely popular, and ethical, implementing reforms in response to a scandal precipitated by family members that ultimately cost her dearly.

This former "physician with studies in military strategy" is also a member of the Club of Madrid, the world’s largest forum of former heads of state and government, so she is well connected.

In 2010, she became the first executive director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women ("UN Women"), which had been created by merging

the Division for the Advancement of Women;
the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women;
the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women ; and
the United Nations Development Fund for Women;

some of which dated back to 1976.

An OECD review of the effectiveness of UN Women was largely favourable, and included the following:

"The ability of UN Women to recognize key actors and to work with them to address gender equality and women’s empowerment issues, most often to develop appropriate legislation, policies and frameworks, was a key factor contributing to the achievement of objectives. UN Women’s advocacy, its active lobbying and its role in building coalitions and networks also facilitated the achievement of program objectives.  On the other hand, there were also various factors limiting the achievement of objectives, such as weaknesses in program design, often linked to over ambitious objectives, an unclear theory of change, lack of a results orientation, excessively short time frames and/or limited resources."

Overall, my opinion is that the UN has chosen an outstanding woman for this role - one who is capable, credible and well-motivated because of her personal experiences including being a survivor of torture, well-connected and experienced at fighting against limitations and opposition.

There is a question as to whether the organisation she heads will be effective enough to allow her to realise her full potential:

(1) As an outsider, the budget is, if not adequate, continuously increasing and seemingly significant (to me) - see here (the voluntary contributions give me hope that the USA's cut backs may not be too serious).
(2) Staff numbers have been constant at around 1,000. I found some criticism in 2006 that the mix of nationalities wasn't representative.
(3) A 2012 review by Australia's DFAT, which was biased towards Australia's aims, gave a reasonable assessment, although criticised the lack of follow up, and noted that "effectiveness of OHCHR's work in this critical area is often constrained by denial of access, and by limitations in capacity and financial resources?

In addition, she will be in operating in a world of governments that don't want to admit their guilt or give up their nasty "tools".

So: a great Commissioner, a brave organisation with limited resources, and a savage world.

I wish her well, and look forward to her efforts, and to doing what I can to help her.

Will to Intervene

The Will to Intervene is the response to the failure of governments to act on the Responsibility to Protect: is anyone in Australia working on this?

A commentary on recent events

I have limited time and energy: as a result of that, and the much higher priority that keeping my job so I can support those I do, I can't do the nice writing that I wish to. As a result of that, and a few other changes I've been making to my blogging, I've decided to do the occasional post with just a brief comment or two on current events. This is the first of those posts.

*****

I'll begin with authoritarianism - and examples of the abuses committed by such systems include the charges against two Reuters journalists who exposed burma's genocide (and Australia's charges against a whistleblower and his lawyer), the disappearance of a woman who "defaced" a poster of China's Chairperson Xi, the continuing grab for more power of Turkey's Erdowan (ph. version of "Erdogan"). Specifically, I read an article arguing that the imposition of sanctions feeds authoritarianism. The article is well written, and worth a read and ponder.

I suspect, like many things, there is a need to explore the nuance a bit further (e.g., some sanctions do lead to or aid change), and this article may reflect the influence of the unbridled power, arrogance and bullying of the USA, which is staggeringly backwards socially - to the extent that not many there are even aware of it. (They are also not aware of their hypocrisy over border "security".) When I wrote that, I was thinking, in particular, of debates on LinkedIn where US people have been victim-blaming people born into poverty for "not taking personal responsibility", and neoliberalism generally, but also this case of selling a my nation's soul and morals to neoliberalism.

Another part of the current selling-of-their-souls by nations has been cutting foreign aid. Apparently, however, paralegal aid to developing nations is both effective and supported.

Another thought for aid aimed at promoting peace or at least minimising violence is that "socialisation is a more durable way of promoting restraint"; a soundly based article . . . do authoritarians and victim blamers also need to be better socialised? (One of the problems of writing about that is that people - particularly those in the elites - tend to view such matters from their perspective, which is warped by centuries of social engineering - particularly by neochristianity, but also the desensitisation to suffering and violence perpetrated "on the laying fields of Eton", which is where the grounds of the British Empire was supposedly crafted, and that influence was passed on to the USA.)

That leads into my next item: researchers have found that a mild current applied to art of the brain "reduces aggressive intent". Now, this is not ECT, and it is being worked on in the context of people with profound violence problems in situations such as domestic violence, BUT . . . it raises ethical concerns about where it could go (i.e., large scale changing of character for nefarious purposes, or as an imposition of this instead of being jailed), and it weakens the researchers case that they don't appear to have even thought of that. (For what it is worth, I consider that, if this is proven to the extent that it becomes reliable, safe and "approved for use", extremely violent criminals facing jail for the rest of their lives MIGHT possibly be given the OPTION of choosing this VOLUNTARILY as a basis for them getting out at some stage, but I think it is a slippery slope to make it compulsory - jail violent criminals yes, but I don't trust governments being involved in character modification: that leads to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) In terms of the technique itself, I consider violent tendencies to generally be an indication of a damaged soul:  education and personal growth are preferable first steps, but there are people where such techniques may be pragmatically necessary step - for instance, those leaving the overwhelming indoctrination of the military.

Finally, it was god to read an article in the media which was open about the constraints on the media, and the resultant flaws in news reportage.

Cost Cutting as a Cover for Fear-Based Abdication Of Responsibility

Some years ago, the local Council where was I living at the time upgraded the stormwater system in our street.

Now, that’s good for a whole range of reasons, but on in particular is that a fair it of work has shown that the best thing local government can do to prepare for the uncertainties of climate change is to ensure all infrastructure is being properly maintained, so it can operate as well as is possible.

That’s important for other reasons as well – for instance, if stormwater drainage isn’t operating properly, water can pool of the road, leading to accidents. (I think I read, in the media, of a court case as a result of a death or injury from exactly such an event: I don’t recall the outcome, but I do recall there was discussion on the balance between people driving cautiously [aka “personal responsibility”] vs. Council’s [i.e., our collective] responsibility, but it didn’t get into how external life factors [e.g., being force to work late and thus being tired, the demands of family duties, etc] can influence the ability to take personal responsibility.)

Overall, the project was managed reasonably well from a communications point of view (although the demands of surviving in the modern era meant some people didn’t read brochures about losing access the next day, and they weren’t home when the Contractor’s people tried to talk to them – which is a valid criticism of the communications strategy). I can’t say much about the technical side, as I didn’t have access to the technical specifications, but what I saw looked good.

Nevertheless, there were problems – such as one foreperson being so unbelievably foul mouthed that I considered calling the police and laying a complaint under Section 17 of the Summary Offences Act – and I’m used to foul language from my experience in the construction industry, from competitive sailing in the 1970s (a sport which has improved on that aspect subsequently), and others I’ve known (not many of the ex-military I’ve known, though).

I talked to Council about the problems, and they referred everything to the Contractor. At that time, I discovered that Council had no-one supervising the work being undertaken.

Council said the Contractor had been trained and pre-qualified for the work - as if lack of knowledge was the only reason for past problems. Sure, shortcomings in knowledge and procedures has been a problem, but thinking the training and pre-registration would fix all problems was utter BS – it ignores the biggest source of problems: greed and financial pressure to cut corners to make more profit.

Ultimately, if you don’t see a substantial amount of what is being done – or do random inspections – you cannot be confident that what was specified has been done.

It’s a bit like taking Saddam Hussein’s or North Korea’s word that they’ve got rid of all weapons of mass destruction.

The reality is, people are people: there are times and places to be trusting (e.g., in personal relationships), and there are times not to be – e.g., when spending public moneys.

That actually leads into the most frequent excuse for this abdication of responsibility: cost cutting (often dressed up in fancier phrases, but it’s basically cost cutting). In that case, complaints about rates are used as the pretext to deal with the most obvious, most simple costs – things like paying the inspectors and supervising engineers who used to be the QAQC of projects,

It’s often not actually saving costs so much as shifting them from Council to Contractors, but it enables superficial Councillors to say “hey we cut down Council costs by $X - and we ploughed that back into more work on infrastructure, which increased by $X”.

Yeah, right. That’s all a bit like the current “revelations” that power companies were increasing their prices so they could offer discounts (did some people really not think that was the case?!).

It’s very much a case of Council getting the wrong end of the stick in terms of responses to rising prices (there are better, more long term approaches – such as avoiding one company “panels”, and accepting that, despite its advantages, competition has its limits! [and can be downright damaging – to costs, and to organisational culture]), but the main reason, in my opinion, is using cost cutting as an excuse to abdicate responsibility.

I have come across many people in a wide range of situations, possibly hired because those who put the job description together didn’t know what was really necessary, who haven’t been comfortable with supervision – in fact, even some young engineers aren’t, which I blame on inadequate training at University (too much focus on theory and equations, and not enough on practicality).

The truth is, society would be better off from both a cost and a reliability/quality point of view if some of the practices that have been abandoned under the excuse of cost cutting were reintroduced – not all, as some of the supervision was excessive, but we, as a society, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.

Also, we needed to provide better training and support of those – and I am thinking of people without tertiary qualifications - who had been doing the supervision. That creates a close-in to the councillors cost, but, in one takes the wider view (something neoliberals – and those with Newtonian worldviews - lack, in my opinion), a net saving.

The savings in the long term are particularly obvious when one considers the problem of flammable  cladding, which, in my home state, may have been more widely used because of the elimination of building inspectors in the 90s . . .

In the meantime, we’ve moved, and I’m glad because, in addition to other reasons, I have no evidence other than unsworn word of contractors that the stormwater drainage in our street was built right …

Trauma

This is a cross-posting from here.

****

While I was creating the new format of my Psychic Weather Report posts, I re-read this post of mine, and I started thinking about trauma.

Now, I have had a formal diagnosis of PTSD, but I reject that as I consider PTSD should be reserved for its original purpose: for those, such as the  military and emergency services – who have seen people being killed (or have done the killing), as that makes major changes to the treatment required. (There are some films which show that trauma – “Fury” comes to mind, for instance: “Saving Private Ryan” shows the horrors of war graphically, but it doesn’t show the damage it does “psychologically” [i.e., to character] to the same extent.)

There can be massive trauma from other causes –as the recent Royal Commission into child abuse has shown. In my case, the trauma has been caused by sexual assaults, the bigotry and hate experienced by LGBT people (particularly those trans people who transitioned in the 1990s), and workplace abuse.

On the abuse of trans people, the excuse used at the time – and at other times through history – was “we didn’t know”. That is utter BS – I met people, in the 90s, who didn’t know, but they CHOSE not to cause distress to other people by misgendering. They chose to behave like decent human beings.

As for the other people who indulged in misgendering, well, if you know someone is being distressed by something you’re choosing to do socially (e.g., misgendering, or belittling, etc), then you may be – as far as I am concerned – a sociopath or a psychopath.

If you don’t notice that they’re being distressed you may need to undergo training like autistic people do to better recognise what is going on around you, or at the very least acknowledge that what you’re experiencing (e.g., trauma – and I’ve shared house with people who have been so traumatised they haven’t noticed mine) is making you less aware or sensitive of others’ pain, and be prepared to apologise profusely – and credibly: too many apologies are just attempts to evade trouble without changing. That last comment applies to apologies over misgendering in the workplace: I think I’ve had two or three genuine apologies in three decades. Unfortunately, I’ve generally been too tired (one of the effects of being traumatised) to chase those pseudo-apologies further.

I’ve touched elsewhere about the sexual assaults I’ve had. Curiously, they’ve all been from women – including as a those I experienced as a child, and as an adult pre-transition (including an ex – there was also another ex after I transitioned who falls into that category).

The reactions I experienced have exacerbated the trauma caused – especially pre-transition, and the sort of BS that men can’t be sexually assaulted or raped is part of that. (I’ve also come across women who think them slapping men is OK: it’s not, it is assault, and those who think that are stupid.) I once read a brilliant article about the misconceptions around physiological responses, and how that is not a “sign of consent” (my term). If you doubt that, consider this: the Nazis had ways of forcing male prisoners in the concentration camps to ejaculate, such as driving wooden objects up their backsides. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who think that a male sexual physiological cannot be involuntary or without consent is stupid.

I’ll come back to that in a moment, but first: the reactions of the gullible sheeple who credulously believe the security theatre around airport “security” have exacerbated the trauma I’ve had from the grope downs there – which are the reason I refuse to travel internationally. As I’ve discussed above, there is absolutely NO acceptable excuse for such reactions.

Now, (more) on stupidity. I’ve known some truly stupid men and women in my time, and I specifically lump everyone who thinks misgendering is acceptable, or that it is minor, into that category – which includes some police. As far as I am concerned, morally speaking misgendering is attempted murder. There is no excuse on the basis of “I didn’t know” that is acceptable, and if you didn’t recognise the distress, you have to consider whether you have the lack of empathy that makes you potentially evil (see this post of mine). Those who smile disarmingly, and say “you know I don’t mean that badly” are, without question, evil psychopaths.

Now, I’d like to move on to the workplace – in particular, managers.

Some managers, including my current manager, are great. In fact, I’d rate my current manager equal with the previous best manager I had, but he will never be exceeded as he reversed years of discrimination against me by giving me a 30% - yes 30% - pay rise.

Others have not been good, and one, maybe two, from a few decades ago have been what I consider psychopaths.

The world of business is where the evil of neoliberalism is working its evil. There has been plenty written of late on the problems that economic changes have led – growing worker insecurity, the loss of retirement, inability to buy housing, etc. Part of this is due to union busting, but unions haven’t helped themselves in the past by their misogyny and misuse of/addiction to power. The union busting that has been implemented since then is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater – an overreaction, in other words.

The neoliberal reform of the water industry in my state in the 90s is another example of that. There were problems, such as authorities not working together when they could, and the inflexibility of the MMBW, but the appropriate solution is to fix those problems – not throw the good out with the bad.

The neoliberal trait of throwing the good out with the bad has led a situation in the workplace where workload has damaged, and continues to damage, my wellbeing –physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual.

On that, I’m currently working on an article on how business has perverted the hero myth.

(I’m also working on an article on the problem of everyday people being unthinking, unreflective sheeple living unexamined lives.)

Socially, neoliberalism is driving us, through growing inequality, back into serfdom.

All of this (which can perhaps be summarised as the refusal to be kind) has traumatised the WHOLE of society – especially the USA.

So what can we do?

Well, as a first point, don’t buy in to what you’re told without checking and thinking as best you can. This is more than just being wary of fake news and social media bubbles (which existed before social media): it requires thinking about the meaning of our lives (see here, for instance), and what we want to be. It requires being able to reject wrong influences from parents, peers and other influences so that we can “be all that we can be”.

Think before you vote. I know people who have suffered as a result of neoliberalism who nevertheless voted for Australia’s evil John Howard because his policies enabled them to buy a house.

That’s called buying your vote, and it is has – appallingly – become widespread.

(That’s not a younger “Me First” generation problem, by the way: it is found in older people as well.)

Money is important, though, but the way to manage that is to live minimally and avoid a lifestyle that makes you vulnerable, where you can be manipulated or bullied or intimidated into compromising BPM principles (which is where much of the trauma of work can be) – see here.

There are a range of forms of activism that people can be consider doing, including the psychic/spiritual ones on this blog. There are some excellent articles by John Beckett on this, and I particularly want to recommend “Resisting Politely”, which I read after I started this article, and “Did You Think the Gods Were Lying?”

I want to end with something else I saw after I started this: Hannah  Gadsby’s “Nanette”.

Contrary to some of the reviews I’ve read, which infer this is about the abuse Hannah Gadsby has experienced through comedy, it is about trauma experienced THROUGHOUT LIFE.

It is powerful, and takes the viewer on a journey through multiple aspects of trauma.

It is angry, and it – combined with John Beckett’s post - is the reason I didn’t do my normal tone the expression down edit.

That, and the fact that we are allowing the world to be spiritually mauled.