The Fo - Vulpes vulpes

 

The Fox is a beautiful animal found on every continent of the world.  They are omnivores, like humans, and their diet is primarily insects, reptiles and birds along with vegetables. Fox only eat around two pounds of food a day and will cache excess for later. Some scientists call them opportunistic hunters and they are often considered pests or nuisance creatures because they will attack poultry.  In reality they are just acting naturally.  Our domesticating animals to raise and kill for food is truthfully not natural.  Many foxes adapt to human environments.  There are species that are actually clssified as "resident urban carnivores" because of their ability to live entirely within urban boundaries. (Interesting the use of 'carnivore' when the Fox is an omnivore.)  We had a beautiful Red Fox den in Black Fox Hollow where she had a litter of three kits.

     It is interesting.  We do the same thing with other animals (remembering that we too are animals) as we do with plants that we don't like or have habits that annoy us; viz. we given them derogatory titles - weed, pests, nuisance creatures - and condone their destruction when, as often as not (and generally more often) the weed, pest or nuisance has more value and important to life on Earth than do humans.  (We actually qualify as an invasive species.)  This being said about the Fox,  Fox are actually used to keep "pests" out of orchards.  Humans have never concerned themselves with contradictory behavior as long as it serves our purpose.

     Unlike humans, the Fox is an important member of the animal kingdom.  Despite annoying us by raiding the hen-house, the fox is a major factor in the natural control of rodent and insect populations.

#Fox, #wondersofnature, #animalrights,  #OldConservationist

Mr Spock goes Camping

        It was a marvelous day to be out in the woods. We're camped at one of our favorite spots in Land-Between-the-Lakes in western Kentucky. That's Kentucky Lake in the pic. Besides getting out into the woods, this was a test trip for Mr Spock (our RoadTrek). It seems that none of his problems were structure or engine, but things which could go wrong on your new car. Our  Vortec 7400 7.4L (454 cu in) big block Chevy engine runs like a champ and is barely broken in.  That said, what are the odds of three bad alternators?!? The first wore out. That's okay, but #2 and #3 were brand new. One literally fell apart while the second just didn't work. We've been watching thing closely.  In 5 days without running we lost only 0.2 volts and the new heavy duty alternator is working fine. We love using Mr Spock. When you're east of the Mississippi it's too crowded for anything more. We are thinking of taking it to Mexico next winter to get a new paint job.  There's a place a couple  of hours south of Ajo, AZ that is supposed to do good work for a reasonable price. We love our RoadTrek!  (It's a 96C210P for Trek owners and fans.) 

If you look at an atlas or KY map you can't miss LBL which is in both western Kentucky and Tennessee. It is a federal reserve. The lakes are run by COE and land by Forest Service.  "The Trace" (main road) is 50 miles north to south.  You can boondock almost anywhere except the visitor centers and cemetaries. There are a number of campgrounds as well. One COE campground has utilities but you need reservations.  

     If you haven't seen the natural marvels and beautiful country of the east, it is worth putting up with the horrible traffic and overpopulation at least once. The east is so over-crowded that you will need to plan ahead. I know that doesn't sit well with nomads like us, but it is worth the effort.  

 

LandBetweenTheLakes, #Kentucky, #RoadTrek, #camping, #OldConservationist

Learn the truth of Native Americans

 https://www.facebook.com/1575858736016260/posts/2988198271448959/

It IS time.  We need to start teaching our children the truth. (Did you know there were tribes that had pure democracy when white Europeans didn't know the concept? We still don't have pure democracy.).   White Americans have a lot to learn from our indigenous sisters and brothers. 

#NativeAmericans,  #Hope, #OldConservationist

Our Responsibility to Nature

#cherishnature, #trails, #environment, #nature, #OldConservationist

Because we have skills many other animals don't have, those skills come with responsibility. A number other animals have the problem solving skills and causal reasoning that we have, (i) but we have the more complex brain. That's because we're the new creature on the planet.  We're the new species in evolution. Unlike humans, most species of animals are hard-wired to do the right thing. Whether it is a good or a bad thing, we have the ability to make "rational" decisions. With these gifts of nature comes responsibility. If we clear land to plant a crop we have certain responsibilities to nature to avoid damage to the environment; avoid destroying habitat for other animals. 

    For example, I put a trail through our Black Fox Hollow, which I'm proud to report is now a certified wildlife habitat.(ii)  I fear that most people would fail to see the environmental impact in a simple trail. So let's take a look.  It is our responsibility to nature. 

     Almost all animals end up making trails simply because they use the same routes. Hunters call them game trails. I love to follow game trails when I'm "off trail" (iii) When we create a trail, either purposely or like other animals do, we firstly impact the environment with our presence. When I wander the wilderness well away from human trails, roads, camps, etc., I don't have to worry about causing a steady stream of homo sapiens behind me that might negatively impact the lives of the animals whose habitat I'm visiting. Nevertheless, I still must be extremely careful where I step and what I do. Going "off trail" should be a very thoughtful act. When done properly, it isn't as easy as it appears but provides a wonderful intimate experience with nature. 

     If we create a trail, as I did in the hollow, we must be aware of at least five things. (a) We must be aware of the impact our trail has on wildlife. Is my trail too close to places where animals might den and give birth to their young? I know that we have a number of animals that borrow or den in the hollow.  Most of them are near a brush pile that I purposely created for their protection. I kept the trail away from there. We were rewarded for our efforts by the presence of a beautiful Red Fox and the three kits to whom she gave birth in the safety of the hollow.  We learned that three of them, the mother and two kits, were captured and released in a very nice place. The remaining kit has returned to the hollow, probably because this is a safe place for her with food and water.  We would not have had this wonderful experience if we had put the trail too near their den. 

      (b) Does my trail destroy any food source or keep animals away from vital food sources?  Governments building roads and putting up border walls are the worst at destroying food sources or keeping animals away from food sources.  Our previous GOP Congress and Administration did irreparable damage to the environment, cutting off animals from food and essential migratory routes.  As you travel through the west you will see wildlife bridges across roads, especially four-lane roads, to provide animals with a safe means of accessing food and following migratory paths.  The Black Fox Hollow trail makes a loop. Inside the loop is an area rich in plants and seeds that provides food for birds and small animals.  Were it not for the very light foot traffic on our trail, such a small loop; only .15 mile; could potentially be a barrier to animals seeking food.  Since the trail does not have heavy traffic, it is not a hindrance. 

       (c) Human presence can be stressful to wildlife.  Even bears (omnivores) and big carnivores will move away from humans. I'm very familiar with bears. They have been a significant part of my wildlife management avocation, an important part of my life, and almost a daily event in our lives managing a campground sixteen miles into the Rocky Mountain wilderness.  I can't help but wonder whether they can tell that we humans are a violent and dangerous species.  If we put stress on bears, moose, wolverines, mountain lions and other large animals high on the food chain, you can imagine our impact on those further down the chain.  Stress is as deadly for a wild animal as it is for the human animal. Does my trail cause stress?  Is that stress forcing them away from important parts of their habitat?  Our trail, by design and lack of heavy traffic, does not interfere with the fox hunting. Also we know that most of their hunting is going to be outside the loop.  If you are on a wilderness trail, in bear or mountain lion country, and you see an animal carcass near the trail, get away from the area as quickly as possible.  Your presence could well stress a big predator into believing it must protect its kill or its food by attacking you. 

     (d)  Is my trail going to cause erosion damage?  A poorly constructed trail can be an erosion nightmare!  In my pictures you can see that my trail is small with minimal impact. At the same time you will notice the picture of the graveled area. I put creek gravel on areas that showed signs of heavy water drainage. Had I not put that gravel in those areas I would soon have deep erosion ruts which would cause significant damage to the land.  If you hike a well maintained trail, you will notice areas that have rocks, logs or other erosion barriers and even small channels dug to move water away from high risk areas.  When we start removing the plants that hold the soil, we risk erosion damage. You will notice that my trail is not totally bare, but that's only because it isn't heavily traveled.  

     (e) Is my trail going to impact or destroy vegetation or microbiotic crusts? (iv)   My trail winds because I designed it that way; trying to imitate a longer trail in the wilderness. Who wants to walk in a straight line?  At the same time I was mindful of the vegetation through which my trail would pass.  I kept it almost complete through grasses, ground cover and wild onions that are very hardy.  One big bend avoids a group of Hackberry trees that have a number of edible and medicinal plants growing below them.  I don't have to worry about microbiotic crusts in the hollow, but it is a very important factor in trails and off-trail hiking in the desert. I can't strongly enough impress upon my readers the importance of acquired skills and extreme awareness, mindfulness and observation when off trail.  There are great numbers of places where one wrong footstep will take nature a hundred years to repair.  Part of my job on one of my trail patrol assignments was to keep mountain climbers from taking short-cuts through fragile alpine vegetation. Unknowing and thoughtless hikers often cut corners on trails. Usually there is a reason for a corner, curve or switch-back. Cutting corners often results in environmental damage.       So why should we care?  Why do I think we have a responsibility to nature?  

     Nature is our life.  We are totally dependent upon a healthy world to survive. We are a result of nature, both as a species and as individuals, therefore we owe our very existence to nature. We are a part of nature. There is an undeniable oneness in the universe that has been confirmed by quantum physics. (v)  Even if we are so selfish that we haven't an altruistic bone in our body, we can still relate to the fact that by hurting nature we are hurting ourselves.  Unlike other situations where we are expected to simply believe that someone/something has done something for us, we have empirical evidence that nature is not only the source of our existence but also provides everything that we need to survive: water, air, food, shelter.  We could not exist without nature.  We cannot live without nature. 

FOOTNOTES:

(i) We're discovering that more and more species do have problem solving skills and causal reasoning.    https://www.primate-cognition.eu/fileadmin/content/Primate_Cognition/Dateien/Schloegl___Fischer_2017_Oxford_Handbook_of_Causal_Reasoning.pdf

(ii) Black Fox Hollow was certified as a Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation in May 2020. 

(iii) "off tail" is where one goes cross-country not using an established human trail or road.  With the proper back-country skills it is an exciting and rewarding way to explore the wilderness. It does, however, require a significant skill set and the willingness to be mindful and observant that you don't do environmental damage or negatively impart local wildlife.

(iv) Microbiotic crusts consist of lichens, bryophytes, algae, microfungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria growing on or just below the soil surface (Eldridge and Greene 1994). These types of crusts have also been known as cryptogamic, microphytic, microfloral, or cryptobiotic,      https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp/science/leonard2.pdf

(v)  Ricard, Mattdhieu and Trinh Xuan Thuan. (2001).  The Quantum and the Lotus: a journey to the frontiers where science and Buddhism meet.  New York. Three Rivers Press.  Especially Chapter 4 "The Universe in a grain of sand."  

Accepting that we have no greater right.

 

The idea that we are not only the most important animal on the globe but the only one that counts goes back to religion; especially the three Abrahamic religions. 

Buddhism and some of the eastern religions see being human as a superior condition, but they acknowledge all animals as sentient beings. All of the tribes indigenous to North America whose spirituality I have studied believe that we are a part of nature just as are other animals. 

If you have a hard time accepting that an animal other than a human has the same right to exist as do we, I would lay odds on you having grown up in a Jewish, Christian or Muslim home. 

To accept this reality does not mean that we must stop eating meat. We are omnivores, which is an advantage to our species.  Personally I couldn't kill an animal for food so I'm a vegetarian. That does not mean that I think hunting and eating your kill is bad. Since I couldn't kill another animal, I think it would be inappropriate for me expect someone else to do it for me.  Many cultures thanked the animal they killed to eat, and there are modern American hunters who do the same.  So don't panic. You don't have to give up meat to accept that we have no greater right to exist. 

To accept that we are equal does not mean that you must sudden stop taking care of yourself and your family first.  I would assume that you accept that I have an equal right to be here as you.  If you were suddenly faced with the choice between saving my life or the life of one of you family, who would you pick?  You can be honest. The family member would come first.  That doesn't change my equality. You can accept that all sentient life has an equal right to life without changing you priorities. 

What it does expect is that you will not kill for fun or hunt to extinction. It means that you won't destroy other animals because they annoy you, or get in your way or look funny. You will be mindful of their need for food and water, and not destroy their habitat. The balance of nature has done an excellent job without human interference. It is when we start messing with nature, because we think we are more important, that we cause tremendous problems for everyone. 

#animalrights, #nature,  #sentientbeings, #OldConservationist

Live in peace with other animals

#OldConservationist, #cherishnature

 

BEE KEEPING!

 

 So glad to see this on FaceBook. We need a lot more!!!  Bee keeping is enjoyable and rewarding.  Look for a beekeeper group or talk to you county agent about how you can get started.  When I started keeping bees in 1975 I got most of my bees by getting swarms out of people's trees and buildings.  

Thank you to the Henns!!!!

#OldConservationist,  #beekeeping,  #cherishnature

Black Fox Hollow Springing

 #OldConservationist, #cherishnature,  #indigenousplants

    Signs of Spring are arising in Black Fox Hollow.  The Blue Bells, among others, survived a horrible storm. The Trillium are carpeting the south hillside. Most of the new trees survived the winter. But most surprising of all is that we have four Dandelions!!  Dandelions are not woodland plants, but we have four hardy plants growing near the trail where they get sun. HURRAY!  Each year that the hollow is allowed to go undesturbed we are blessed with the return of more wonderful indigenous plants. 

Nature will prevail

    Isn't it amazing how nature can carve mountains and move boulders like this. This is the rock which we use to make monuments to ourselves.  No artisan is capable of creating any statue or building or painting that can compare to the wonders of nature.  Yet we appear daily to do our best to replace the magnificent natural world with our fragile monuments and scrape the earth to make way for our infestation.  Even though nature is the sole source of all that gives us life and sustains that life, we purposely pollute and destroy nature. Isn't that tantamount to omnicide?  My only hope lies in my firm belief that nature will prevail.  

     This really isn't anything new.  I would venture to offer a theory of how this all came about. 

     I have written several essays about social systems (i) concluding that they are not the friend of the homo sapiens. Quite the contrary. My theory in this case goes back to the days when social systems were just developing.  I can't put a date on it, but suffice it to say that homo sapiens prospered for ninety-percent of our time on earth without social systems.  Social system began to develop with the concepts of private land, ownership, government and organized religion. Because of their superior recording systems we are most aware of this in ancient Egypt and China.  

     Since any expertise I might be able to claim as an historian or student of human development is going to relate to Europe, including the Mediterranean countries, and North America.  I can claim a strong understanding, verging on an expertise, of the Abrahamic religions. (ii)  Judaism, the parent religion of the three Abrahamic religions, appears to be the original antagonist. Even though other religions were beginning to become organized and socialized over a larger area, they still held nature in a central role.  

     Judaism was the most obvious to start placing people above nature and treating nature as something apart and humans as not being a part of nature.  Now, I'm sure that there can be arguments made against other religions, but these other religions did not spawn the religion that would dominate Europe by the time Europeans began to colonize the world.  Judaism's attitude toward nature is established in the first chapter of their Torah "fill the earth and subdue it." (iii)  This is a part of what Christians call the Old Testament, and so Christianity, the first child of Judaism, took this 'other-than-nature' attitude with them on their colonial conquests.  

     This concept may have been present in other cultures by the time that white Europeans began to colonize the world, but a major part of that colonization was to impose their belief systems on those whom they conquered.  The colonization of North America is vile litany of white Europeans destroying the culture, religion, language and history of the indigenous people.  The indigenous peoples of North America felt very much a part of nature. (iv)

     Enter capitalism.  Actually capitalism goes back to England and the Netherlands of the 17th century.  Many people believe that  capitalism is an "American" idea. Sorry to break the news. (v)  It was beneficial to capitalism to court government and religion.  Capitalism added the concept that nature is a resource (vi) only valued for the wealth it could bring.  If land could not be used to further one's wealth it was considered useless even though it might be an immensely important part of an ecosystem.  A good example is how humans will drain "useless" swamp land to build or farm when in reality the swamp is critically important to all life - including human - as a source of clean water, air and food.  However, to the capitalist it isn't worth anything unless it makes them money.  As a result we see places like the large area along the Grand Canyon that cannot be hiked because of the old uranium mines that have ruined the land and made it dangerous to all animals, including humans. (vii)  

     This theory then brings the three social systems; religion, government and capitalism; together as the perpetrators of the three most egregious falsehoods that (a) humans are superior to nature, (b) that human over-population, mega-farming, lumbering and industrialization do not hurt nature and therefore all living creatures, and (c) that nature is nothing more than a resource. 

     Today we see that there is little regard for nature unless it is providing profits or the raw materials to make a product to make a profit. Religion, which can be argued to be the first to disregard nature, relied for a long time on good relationships with the reigning government. We have seen that, since Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (viii), government has become dependent upon the wealthy capitalist for their continued power. This, then, ties religion, government and capitalism together.  Three great social systems run by an elite few for the benefit of an elite few. 

     Make no mistake.  We are not above nature.  Human history is filled with examples of nature, in little more than a blink of an eye, laying waste to humans' sad monuments to their own glory,     taking back what human have endeavored to destroy or control.  One of my favorite examples is how humans thought that they had taken control of the Mississippi River for the purpose of commerce on the river and farming in the low wetlands stolen from the river by a series of levees, the first being built in 1717 to create New Orleans.  The first time the levees  were taken out by nature was 1844 in the Great Flood.  In 2005 over fifty levees failed. (ix)  I happen to drive across one of the few roads and bridges that were high enough to go from the east to west side of the river.  I drove for almost twenty miles with the Mississippi on both sides of me.  Nature had prevailed, and nature will continue to prevail. 

     In her June 1st, 2020 New York Times article, Rachel Neuwer (x) reports that experts give us 10-15 years before we reach the critical point of no return. After that we will rapidly progress  toward the point where the earth is uninhabitable to animals such as homo sapiens. The down side is that we homo sapiens must bear the greatest guilt in hastening this mass extinction and are killing ourselves by making no effort to change our ways. The up-side is that nature will prevail. As long as the building blocks for life still remain, nature will clean the water, soil and air that we have fouled, create new life forms, and start anew. Nature will prevail, but human will probably not be a part of it. 

       

FOOTNOTES: 

(i)  See my essay on "What constitutes a social system?"        https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-constitutes-social-system.html

(ii)  First as a history major as an undergraduate, followed by three years of graduate school where I carefully studied the Abrahamic religions and read two of their three holy books in the original language. 

(iii)  Genesis 1:28 

(iv)  Hudson, Charles. (1976).  The Southeastern Indians.  Knoxville, TN.  University of Tennessee Press. 

(v)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism 

(vi)  resources =df  a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively. Similar: assets, funds, wealth, money, riches, capital. 

(vii)  https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon-uranium

(viii)  A copy of the actual Supreme Court opinion.   http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf.

(ix)  https://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/Portals/52/docs/MRC/MRT_Levees.pdf?ver=2017-07-27-141912-910    -and-  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_levee_failures_in_Greater_New_Orleans#:~:text=On%20August%2029%2C%202005%2C%20there,Katrina%20and%20landfall%20in%20Mississippi.

(x)  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/science/mass-extinctions-are-accelerating-scientists-report.html?fbclid=IwAR1yr9C3VW5JCmR6dd56Zbsu2USMGCVePY_vZLR6DKhq2moyN7uwYWwmixU

From street to court room

     Some of us still remember the 1960s when millions of us took the the streets of Washington D.C. and other major cities to protest social inequalities and the war in Viet Nam. I was in Washington for two of the biggest.  We took to the streets because, in the 1960s, politicians at least acted like they cared and ultimately gave in to the will of the people. 

     More than once in the years I have been blogging and writing about environmental and other issues, I've had readers reply with the idea that we need to take to the streets again.  I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, the more people in the streets the greater the evidence that a majority of people do not like what the Washington Swamp is doing and want change.  I cheer every time students walk out of school or show up at a capital en masse.   They know it is their future that we are destroying.   BUT ... you knew that 'but' was coming, didn't you? ... we all know that politicians no longer need to appear to work for the people or care what the people feel, think, want, etc.  Especially since the Citizens United decision politicians do not need to appeal to the people. There is absolutely no doubt that the majority of politicians are controlled by mega-corporations because the corporations give them millions of dollars to get elected.  Would you "bite the hand that feeds you", i.e. the one who keeps you rich and employed? 

     In the 1960s it was still almost embarrassing for a politician to admit that they wanted to make politics their life-time occupation. We still lived under the delusion that going to Congress was a public service which entailed some degree of sacrifice. I well remember the first political science major I met at a large Midwestern university who was bold enough to say that, for them, college was preparation for becoming a life-long politician.  Suddenly public service had become an occupation and the politician was in a position of 'doing-what-was-necessary' to keep their job. With Citizens United they soon forgot for whom they were supposedly working.  Elections soon became totally about who had the most money - which was always relatively true - and not about issues. 

     I'm not going to try to address election reform, but we must realize that our real battle is going to take place inside a courtroom.  When you start deciding which environment or social-issue organization you are going to support I recommend that you check out their legal department.   Do they have attorneys with excellent success rates?   What's their win ratio against the government?  While there are many fine organizations which deserve our support, we must realize that we need to put the bulk of our meager funds into organizations that can beat the government in court.  Until we can get rid of Citizens United, this is the best for which we can hope. 

First Rule of Life

     I had the great privilege of studying with the Dalai Lama a number of years ago.  I was just one of probably 200 students, but when he spoke I felt like I was the only person in the room. He was talking to me.  During that time I learned that Buddhism is actually 99% philosophy/psychology of life and 1% religion.  I must admit that if I were to be forced to declare a religion I would probably say that I am 99% Buddhist. Forget the religion. Philosophically I'm an ontological naturalist and existentialist.  It is the philosophy, psychology and spirituality of Buddhism that usually draws a person to it.  The first Rule of Life - classic Buddhism loves lists - is that we do good to all sentient beings and if we can not do good, do no harm.  I don't care how many marvelous, powerful, inspirational, insightful things Buddha or the Dalai Lama might have said, if I got nothing else out of Buddhism this was worth the effort. 

     Like everyone else, for many years I used the word 'hate' totally inappropriately.  I have spent so many years trying not to use the word that it now grates on my nerves to hear someone say "I hate that".  Children will say "I hate spinach".  They don't really hate spinach. They may dislike its taste and have never tasted a truly great spinach calzone but they don't hate spinach.  For some time we have used the word 'hate' to describe a really strong dislike.  Having fallen into this myself, it has come back to bite me despite my efforts at not using the word.  I haven't said "I hate..." for quite a number of years but not too long ago one of my children reminded me that I had said that I hated some politician.  They were correct to remind me but it wasn't hatred. The sad thing is that they have never noticed that I haven't used the word 'hate' to describe my feelings toward anyone or anything for well over a decade.  

     Now, there are those who would disagree that helping others is our primary purpose in this life.  Capitalist would say that our primary purpose in life is to make a profit.  If you look at our ever more capitalistic society you will notice that there seems to be less and less room for compassion and helping others.  For example, the federal government gave North Carolina less than 1% of what they asked for help to recover from Hurricane Matthew. This administration has repeated this type of behavior throughout the pandemic, using threat, bullying and withholding of critical medical supplies to force people to do what they want even if the people feel it is wrong. Almost every day our Congress looks for ways to take money from programs that help people so that they can pay for tax breaks for their enormously wealthy friends who paid to get them elected.  Such people find no value in the First Rule of Life because they find no value in helping other people. They seem to believe that only they are important and the medieval ex regula just divinum  - ruling by divine right. I do think that's one of the things to which we objected in our Declaration of Independence.  But I'm getting off on a tangent.  However, the tangent itself is an excellent example of applying the First Rule of Life.

     The First Rule of Life does not restrict us. It frees us.  It makes no demands of us.  It doesn't say that you must like or love the other, but if you can't do good to them, just try not to hurt them.  This is actually the foundation for most of the modern martial arts.  Many of the major defensive arts were developed by Buddhist monks who might be called upon to defend themselves or others.  The martial arts are designed to be non-lethal. The First Rule of Life actually protects us. We are not expected to retaliate or seek vengeance as you find in the three Abrahamic religions.  

     If you are one who has natural compassion and empathy toward others, you are probably wondering why I am making such a big deal about the First Rule. It makes sense to you. Sadly, it doesn't make sense to a large percentage of our society who follow a man who preaches, promotes and instigates hatred, bigotry, racism and violence. Consequently we have a significant shortage of compassion and equity. 

Destroyers of Inner Peace

Photo credits: NPR

     As I have been contemplating and writing essays about peace, I came to the disturbing realization that our social systems are actually destroyers of inner peace.  In fact, I would have to call them the antithesis of inner peace.   While our natural world is our source of peace,  social systems attempt to indoctrinate us with the belief that peace comes from participating in their high stress systems which keep us worried about tomorrow and focused on often unattainable goals.  Some of these systems, religion being the principal offender, would have us believe that nature, the source of true peace, is an enemy to be overcome.  

     This is especially true of the Abrahamic religions in what is called 'the western world'. Even though they constantly fight among themselves telling their followers that the others are evil, they are related. Both Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism. I confine my remarks to these religions because they are the ones with which I am quite familiar.  

     It doesn't take long to realize that none of the three religions creates or even supports inner peace. Oh, they all talk about it, and their greetings and liturgies are full of the supplication for peace, but there is really no support or encouragement. Their concept of peace seems more closely aligned with "social peace" which is the lack of public conflict and violence but has nothing to do with individual needs and generally achieved by doing what you're told and not rocking the proverbial boat. Peace is always something 'out there' which is only available to the faithful follower who gives up independent thought and does what their religious leaders tell them, even if it is evil and goes against what their holy books say.  Once you have fulfilled all of the expectation then you might experience peace.  Usually you don't and are told that that is because you didn't believe strongly enough or pray hard enough. I don't know where this peace is supposed to originate since these religions never have you focused on the present. You are always worried about the future. Everything you do is focused on obtaining a future prize.  Since we have clearly observed that peace is a part of our nature and experienced only in the present, because the past is gone and the future does not exist, we must be extremely skeptical of a religion that tells its followers not to worry because there will be peace in their future if they do as they are told.

Only 1.8% of the population voted for George Washington

     Governments are the second social system that destroys inner peace. Government could care less if we have inner peace. That just isn't what governments do. I can't help but think of the exchange in the 1992 movie "Sneakers" between Whistler (David Stdrathairn) and government boss, Abbott (James Earl Jones). Whistler said "I want peace on earth goodwill toward men", to which Abbott replied, "We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing." (i) Governments want social peace in the form of no one complaining, no one noticing their faults and behaviors, and no one rocking their boat. Be quiet, do your job and pay your taxes. Government creates tremendous stress by its very existence. I have always called it a necessary evil.  I believe that one cannot find a government at any point in history that was/is not run by an elite group.  It is, at best, the Animal Farm (ii) scenario; all animals are equal but pigs are more equal.  The French Revolution was meant to create a republic of the people, but those common people; "citizens", as the French revolutionaries called them; who led the revolt soon became the new elite and corruption followed. Government creates stress because we witness how often power corrupts. My father, a professor of history who specialized in US Constitution, had the saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  More and more politicians are demonstrating their belief that they are above the law of the land.  The GOP has made it clear that government of, by and for the people is gone. Now we work for big corporations and the wealthiest 1% thanks to Citizens United. (iii) This really isn't anything new.  If you carefully study the development of the United States Constitution, you will soon realize that it was never intended to be governed by 'common people'.  The founding fathers set up the US government to be run by men with land and wealth. Only 1.8% of the US population actually got to vote for George Washington. (iv) That really isn't Lincoln's idea of government of, for and by the people. Government is antithetical to inner peace.    

     Capitalism is in bed with the politicians and religion. (v) This is nothing new and has been extremely common in western world history. It is a matter of control. Capitalism purposely creates dissatisfaction. If you are happy with your car,  refrigerator,  TV or computer then you won't buy a new one. Capitalism is an unstable, unsustainable system that depends upon constant mass consumption. They don't want you happy. Can an unhappy, dissatisfied person know peace? Capitalism wants you to believe that constant and excessive consumption makes you happy. Peace doesn't even enter the equation. 

    I don't have any theory on where it began, but humans in much of the world feel the need for revenge and someone to hate. Social systems make use of this and even promote it. Look at how Donald Trump and his GOP play the rednecks of this country "like a cheap fiddle." He encourages anger, hatred, violence, and revenge, and then sets up target groups - immigrants, liberals, native Americans and anyone who disagrees with him. You cannot hate and seethe with anger and know peace. Think of how often you have had a conflict or even simple disagreement with someone and hours, days, months or even years later you are still  a no-win game of "if I had only said." You are living in the past. Peace is not past. Peace is now.  However, social systems such as religion, government and capitalism blatantly keep people angry or upset about the past and fearful or stressed about the future, never giving one a chance to experience peace. 

     Inner peace is arguably the most sought after human experience.  I have never heard, nor would I ever expect to hear, anyone say that they did not desire inner peace. Could you, dear reader, look me in the eye and say that you don't care about experiencing inner peace - being at peace with and within yourself? I believe that it is very clear, very obvious, that our social systems, always run by an elite few,  don't really want us experiencing and enjoying inner peace.  If we did, we might find that we don't need them and they would lose control. 

“Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.” —Dalai Lama

FOOTNOTES. 

(i)   From the 1992 movie "Sneakers"  https://www.moviequotes.com/s-movie/sneakers/
(ii)  Orwell, George. (1945). Animal Farm. London. Secker and Warburg.
(iii)  Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, 2010, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on an election.  https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
(iv)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
(v)  Most people actually agree that government; currently the Republican Party; and large corporations have combined forces to control, manage and run our country,  I wonder how many people realize that the merger of corporate and government power is the actual definition of fascism given by the Father of Fascism, Benito Mussolini. Actually Mussolini wanted to call fascism "corporatism".  By the strictest definition, we currently have a fascist government.