Because You Never Asked

     How does one fight such an enemy --- and make no mistake about it, the Real World Order is the enemy. It only cares for Itself. It operates under no altruistic criteria. Its own survival is paramount and everything else is used to sustain It. It must be severely pressured into anything that benefits others at Its own expense, be it economic, ecological, or whatever. Even Its acts of "charity" are calculated decisions meant to strengthen Its position. If the system is not working, it is allegedly because the people furthest from Its power source are demanding too much. All serious problems are passed on to these people in the form of lower wages, decreased pensions, weakened social services and collateral benefits. If left to Its own devices (i.e.- no outside pressure from anywhere), It will do nothing to equilibrate the desperate situation of third world material humiliation, nor will It improve the conditions of the sizeable amount of unfortunate people in their strongholds of the developed world. It is in the process of dismantling perhaps the greatest socio-political accomplishment of mankind, that being the safety net created by the modern 20^th century nation-state. It is putting us back on the road to the every-man-for-himself social jungle of the Charles Dickens-like days of the Industrial Revolution. At one point in history, It had a role in the progression of the species, mainly in the form of technological advancements, but It now needs to be reformed if It is to be a positive force in the world --- I repeat, how does one resist the wreckage caused by such an enemy, an enemy that is so diffused, so nebulous, so difficult to zero in on or assess blame to, an enemy that seems to exist everywhere and yet, can't seem to be found? Is it Rupert Murdoch? Is it General Motors? Is it George Bush? Is it the National Football League or Major League Baseball, so blatantly providing their venues for massive propaganda stunts? How to confront this ghost-like beast that disguises Itself so well, that never shows exactly who or what Its fundamental essence is? How to undermine something I can only refer to as "It"?

     If we assume the lungs giving breath to this global economy beast are strongest in the United States --- and I think that is a fair assumption --- the environment for resistance there can only be seen pessimistically. The opposition, in spite of its substantial numbers, has been gelded, primarily by the media monopoly operating within the beast's ranks. This leaves a resistance movement almost incapable of propagating itself. As a result, although the success of American opposition cannot be considered impossible, the Genesis of this resistance would most likely have to come from somewhere else

     In the essay "The New World Order", I've already spoken about the new poles of contention that could be created by America's unilateral aggression in the world. One of the most logical emerging opposition forces would be centered on the European Community, including Russia. Obviously, the beast I refer to as the "Real World Order" ("It") has its tentacles well embedded in this part of the world as well, and any attempt to weaken the beast would be a bloody battle. But there is a more plausible chance for success in the more mature societies of the Old World. The opposition here is more sophisticated, more organized, more self aware and less smothered by a monopolistic blanket of media control. What's more, they are still able to speak through the traditional political apparatus, something that the resistance in the United States has just about been denied (thanks for nothing, Democrats).

     Let's say you are walking down the street and see a $10 bill on the sidewalk. As you stop to examine it, another person rounds the corner and approaches from the opposite direction. This person is stronger and more physically aggressive than you. As you bend over to pick up the money, this person says, "Hold it! I want it." You say, "No way, I saw it first." The stronger person says, "Go scratch your ass on a cactus bush", and takes the $10 bill. As he walks away, you say to yourself that this is the last time anyone tells you to scratch your ass anywhere, and you decide to start working out, to learn how to fight, etc.

     This, of course, is one of the logical options open to any socio-economic political entity interested in opposing the aggressive American pathos now going unchecked in the world. In the essay "The New World Order", I've already mentioned a European military build up as a possible reaction to the American bully. Unfortunately, I've already seen a few articles in the European press that could be seen as the embryonic beginnings for such a course of action. I say "unfortunately" for a number of reasons: The idea of spending so much time, effort and resources on such an unproductive task, can only be seen as fitting well within the parameters of the word "unfortunate". Likewise, the propagation of an arms race leading to heavily militarized opposing forces, can only be looked upon as a retro-step in the evolution of the species.

     Being a bully is usually compensation for not being very smart. There are always ways other than force to better deal with bullies.

     If we blow away all the usual smokescreens given for inflicting death and destruction, we see that almost all acts of military aggression involving the "real players" in the world, are somehow connected to secure, viable, cheap sources of energy. The global economy has an eating disorder that, at the moment, can only be fed with oil. Any socio-political entity (e.g.- the European Community), which can effectively wean itself from fossil fuels, relegates the Bush plan for world domination to irrelevance. This means that all those hundreds of billions of dollars spent on military supremacy are now going up in smoke, like a pile of leaves in autumn. "Go ahead, control all those pools of oil in Iraq, who cares?" The bully has been outsmarted.

     Can it be done?

     Before explaining why I think it can be done, it's relevant to note that the military option in Europe, although the resources and technical ability are available, would seem an almost impossible task. The emotional homogeneity necessary to coordinate such a huge force is lacking. Trying to pull the various national identities together into a cohesive unit would be a daunting task defying all the odds. It wouldn't get my bet.

     But a vast technical effort with the undeniable positive effects of developing clean, cheap, efficient sources of renewable energy, seems much more possible. In fact, it would almost seem impossible not to pull together in such an effort.

     Back in those remote days when I was a teenager, the Russians became the first nation to put a man in space. This sent an emotional shock wave through the United States that culminated in an official governmental policy aimed at being the first on the moon. President Kennedy himself laid out the plan, the funds were made available, the priorities were set, and America got to work. None of this had to do with the "free market" or ideological economics. It was a public project funded by the people. Although one might question its eventual worth, the fulfillment of the goal is not open to doubt. In fact, it was accomplished sooner than expected.

     If we were to substitute the development of renewable sources of energy for the lunar project, the same "modus operandi" could be used. The "de-fossilization" of energy sources would seem a more reachable goal than landing on the moon. Much of the groundwork has already been set, both in a vehicular and electrical sense. It is only a question of will, and America's oil aggression might be the perfect incentive to get the job done.

     The astute reader (I love astute readers, even non-astute readers) might say, "Why not in America?" Indeed, why not? Instead of paying such techno-giants like R.C.A., G.E., G.M. or I.B.M. to develop bombs and missiles, we could be paying them to develop workable sources of sun, wind, water, manure, garbage, corn, magnetic, or . dog breath power! If we could bring the science of providing clean, renewable energy sources up to par with the technological sophistication we've perfected in killing people . you get it by now, don't you?

     Unfortunately, the American political system seems far too compromised by petroleum-energy company money for this to happen in the foreseeable future. But the good news is this:

     If the Europeans (or any formidable economic player) managed to create an economy centered over clean, renewable sources of energy, an American economy still dependent on fossil fuel could only be seen as an archaic dinosaur. Not only would a cleaner, more pleasing environment be evident, but the "de-fossilized" economy would have to be cheaper. Once the initial costs in implementing it were covered --- and this would be done communally amongst all the participating nations --- the massive use of such a system running smoothly, would more than pay for itself. Remember, no exploration expenses, no complex extraction expenses, no huge tankers traveling thousands of miles, no complicated refining expenses, and, most of all, no huge military establishment needed to steal and protect the precious liquid.

     Let's get on with it and put an end to the politics of oil.