Street Fighting Man

Edition #49 — 10 Oct 2003

A Tale Of True Pity

Long dead in body and spirit are those courageous revolutionaries who toppled the French Aristocracy and inspired Charles Dickens to write A Tale Of Two Cities. Today, many of us won't even discuss politics or religion for fear of disrupting someone else's nice orderly illusion about the world they live in. We don't want to anger people, or make them afraid by challenging their reality.

Today's anarchist is no longer desperate with nothing left to lose. With six payments left on his new wide screen tv, he rebels from the comfort of his couch, protecting his regimented existence from the dangers of pepper-spray, arrest and a lost day of work.

Yet without that "Street Fighting Man" spirit, we also find ourselves far too complacent about the systemic corruption and abuses of our government cabals as they rule and rape us from on high with relative impunity.

But our apathy can only protect us from the truth for so long. As British rockers The WHO once sang: "Meet the new boss — same as the old boss!" That song was called Won't Get Fooled Again. Yet we're still being fooled.

Sign Of The Times

Today's leaders are a reflection of our times: bland, bought and clueless. We're currently in recycling mode because nobody seems to know what to do next. In fact, George Bush Jr's being elected came from our grasping for the bygone era of his father. Today's music and fashions are already 30 years old — though new to some — while our politics are ancient. Change — it has to come.

Today's youth, disoriented and displaced by the previous three decades of blind selfishness, are too busy with tattoos, eyebrow studs, breast implants and genetically modified junk foods, to worry about becoming the next generation of responsible parents, teachers, and leaders of our aimless and recycled nations. What's going to happen to us?

Fact is, we're in the midst of a great and positive transition. As the old world desperately clings to the security of its ancient, traditional habits and beliefs, the newer generations, frustrated by the limitations of drinking hope from an old, cracked vessel, are looking for the new container. Think about the evolutionary leap from horse and buggy to space station in the last hundred years and then apply that to consciousness: staggering.

Inherently, we know we cannot create an enlightened world by holding on to the values which have kept us in the dark for so long. And so we're searching and fighting our fear of the unknown that awaits us.

And that is our battle: to break free from the restrictive past and evolve. And whether we witness them from the safety of our couches, or through the stinging mist of tear gas and pepper spray on the front lines of the new revolution, profound changes are occurring, within and without.

This is the battle of two opposing forces: evolution and inertia — and it exists within each of us. Outside, it is represented by the various conflicted factions, from enviro-terrorists to new-agers to Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, and of course, the political parties of the right and left wings. There are many hopeful signs of progress, yet with every step forward, the old world strikes back defensively to try to reclaim its ever-shrinking territory.

Upstairs And Down

Those same forces of evolution and inertia exist within us in two regions of our body: the upper torso representing our evolution or "liberation" and the lower torso representing inertia or "conservatism". The upper is forward looking and idealist, the lower is animalistic, selfish and survival based.

Nature has programmed us to be self-centered and security-minded ie. "conservative" to ensure both our survival and that we perpetuate our species. As such, we often find our selfish actions at odds with our highest ideals. Mating, a lower torso activity, maintains that necessarily constant flow of new actors for the world stage and so becomes one of the two primary objectives of human existence — almost automatic and beyond reason. As such, this primal instinct can have an overpowering affect upon our lives if we are not aware of its power.

The upper body, housing such metaphysical entities as the "gut" and the "heart" and the "mind", is a place where we do the spiritual business of evolving our souls. The battle between the two opposing forces is symbolized by many religions as that of "good" and "evil" — a storyline they've obviously taken far too many liberties with...

Still, that doesn't change the fact that we're in a constant battle within ourselves — or haven't you noticed?

One simple example is the married man walking past an attractive girl and fighting to reconcile his sexual urges with his moral and spiritual ethics (hopefully he has some). Another is when we're standing in line and the person ahead of us drops twenty dollars on the ground but doesn't notice — do we keep their money to gain a little more advantage for ourselves at another's expense — or do we rise above our selfishness and return it?

So how does all this relate to politics and social evolution? Well, if you remember a previous realitycheckers newsletter discussing the ruling of the world by alpha males, then you'll see my point more clearly.

First of all: an alpha male politician will take that twenty bucks! After all, his theme is competition, not compassion.

Silver Backs And Green Backs

In nature, the strongest males — the ones who can either strut better or beat the shit out of their rivals — have the distinct privilege of shaking their lower torsos in a rather rigorous back and forth motion with the female of the species in order to replicate themselves for future such exertions. In the animal kingdom, sexual dominance is determined by either physical or display attributes — the silver back Lowland Gorilla is a good example of an alpha-male without the addition of human neurosis.

In human competition — simply add neurosis — we've managed to find many other ways to dominate each other, such as symbolically (money) or emotionally (guilt). And like animals, we also have an alpha male/female "class" or "caste" system to dominate and control others. But rather than physically battle one another for dominance (you can't tax the dead!) we generally use the outward displays of symbolic wealth and power to intimidate or impress others into submission.

Domination is a lower torso urge reflecting our desire for privilege. When filterered through our creative minds, we can invent a plethora of display strategies to position ourselves ever-higher in the pecking order of humankind. As such, Rolex's aren't really meant for telling time, and Ferraris aren't really meant for driving — everybody knows that. They are weapons in the battle against commonalty.

Thus, putting two and two together, a dominant social stature, whether realized through physical or economic means, adds up to both sexual and social privileges normally unaccessible to lesser members of one's pack, tribe, or nation.

OK: now who wants some?

Privilege begins by pocketing that aforementioned twenty and then charging others admission by selling yourself as the main attraction - if they want your company, it's gonna cost them! Ironically, when you're rich everybody pays your way. In fact, there's a whole undercurrent of socially hungry wanna-be-elites surging selfishly toward the gated castles and manors of the ruling class to be accepted into their company - and thus justified. And they'll step on anyone to get there.

That pretty much describes my impression of most politicians.

Aristocrotchy (The Loins Of Our Betters)

With billions of people in the world, anyone can find a mate. Still, the highest honors go to those who dominate economically. This strata of existence is known as "the aristocracy". They are the people with multiple flush toilets in their homes — one to use, the rest for show.

To effectively play the class distinction game while protecting his social status, the aristocrat must maintain that economic gap between his own wealth and a peasant's poverty — otherwise he'd be just be another "commoner". Without slaves to do the dirty work, an aristocrat couldn't wear his fancy clothes around the plantation. In his mind, peasants are there to serve — him.

For politicians aspiring to the aristocracy, voters are their peasantry. In the course of his own race for dominance, security and survival at the top of the food chain, a politician will draw his audience into his game using the same basic animal psychology that rules his own existence. He sells himself as the main event and, in return for votes, he promises them a place at his manor with more privileges relative to their lower class expectations. Usually offering a 200 dollar tax refund does the trick.

Conservative politics are all lower torso, playing out that competitive survivalist game at the cost of their nation tribes — and the environment. It's always the same storyline: some successful business owner or lawyer runs for office on the promise of improving the social status of the "middle class" (anyone with a job) by pushing down the lower class (anyone without a job) even further. Playing into their competitive vanity, the politician offers them a psychological advantage (snobbery) for towing the party line — which is why we hear the exact same self-righteous rhetoric emanating from the mouths of so many different voters: it's all been scripted.

Though still not permitted in first class, the working middle class is enticed to feel loftier — even morally superior — compared to those forced by definition of "useless" to sit on the pavement — "Spare some change, mister?"

As most of us know: we'll take our ego-strokes wherever we can get them - and it's not something we're completely conscious of either. Yet if we considered the motives behind half the things we do, we'd see how much the lower body's competitive drive for dominance controls the rest of our being — and how politicians manipulate those instinctual drives to get us to surrender our power to them.

Hoarding Assets

The political agenda of conservatives is found in the name: to conserve ie. protect their social status. Greatness comes from sacrifice and risk - not cowering from uncertainty. Where is that new horizon of tomorrow if we remain firmly anchored in the harbour of yesterday? Is it an accident that Brasil — considered a "third world country by many - switched to ethanol fuel in the early seventies while the US and Canada, purportedly modern economies, remain shackled to the costly choking smoke of the oil and coal industries? Wind mills? Forget it!

Conservatism has but one purpose: to protect the assets and status of the aristocracy — to not let go of what is for the sake of what could be.

When conservative politicians rule, their desire to conquer and control society for their own benefit is often quickly exposed. There's often a ruthless, apathetic feeling to their rule — such as what we witnessed as George Bush spat in the face of true democracy by invading Iraq to fulfill his agenda — filling the pockets of his republican buddies. Yet what has he done for the people? Protect them? Hardly. In fact, his careless grab for Iraqi oil has put US citizens in greater danger than before 9/11. And still his practiced look and glib manner say: "Oh yeah, well I'm the president — so fuck you!"

In Ontario Canada, few will forget conservative premier Ernie Eves deliberately ignoring Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, on a recent televised debate by pretending to write on his notepad while being questioned about his government's careless performance. Displaying such arrogance, apathy and disrespect suggested that he considered McGuinty beneath him — voters put themselves in McGuinty's shoes and said: "we don't want to be ignored like that!"

McGuinty swept to victory — like an avalanche. It doesn't mean that he's any less selfish in his motivations — but it demonstrates that the arrogance and pride of the aristocratic hierarchy can't hide from the light of scrutiny and always works against itself in the end. Like Tom Cruise putting the pride squeeze on Jack Nicholson's alpha male character in the trial scene of A Few Good Men — you can always flush out an aristocrat by questioning his authority: "You can't handle the truth!"

Truth is, the aristocrat is willing to let others suffer for his gain; you don't want him. In other words: so long, George Bush!

We Could Be Heroes aka Domination Hits The Campaign Trail

To build up our status, the alpha-male aristocrat never gives what is his — lest he loses his power over us. Instead he offers us a position of power from which we can wield GOD-like authority, whether moral or economic, over someone else's life. Self-righteous snobbery is a built in perk in organized religions, offering the "saved" (but obviously not from their pride and vanity) a chance to look down upon sinners once they've donned the team colours. Like throwing a bone to the family dog so he'll protect the master as he feasts upon the meat of privilege, we begin to bark at those who — we are told — threaten our newfound comforts, or are responsible for the lack of them.

Political often engratiate themselves with the working class by filling them with false pride. Here's how it works:

The voter is always "us" whereas all "low lifes" are labelled as "them" and condemned as vampires drinking the lifeblood of "the working man" and keeping him from a brighter future. Men, by the way, fall for this ruse better than women since women are generally more compassionate - we'll get to that later.

So, rather than blaming their own privately chartered flights to Bermuda and Switzerland, high import duties and over-taxing, the loss of local manufacturing to third world sweat shops, frozen minimum wages, corporate greed and offshore hoarding for the sorry state of their economy and social programs, they blame the welfare bums, whores, drug addicts, criminals, the mentally deranged, the homeless — and liberals! Enron? That was the fault of crack-addicted single mothers on welfare from Compton. And Democrats.

The voter, duped by this psychology, finds his perceptual status raised for simply holding down a steady job, paying his taxes, doing what he's told and being none of the above — especially a liberal. The irony, of course, is that those same politicians are the very whores and low life criminals they publicly condemn. That's just another of life's many ironies: the morally indebted working at the collection agency.

Here's an example: Canada's next-to-be-appointed Prime Minister, Multimillionaire "liberal" Paul Martin moved his shipping company to Bermuda then openly complained during a televised cabinet meeting (as Canada's minister of finance) about Canadian corporations who were evading taxes with offshore shell corporations.

And these hypocrites are the people who speak for us — father us politically, protect us with our best interests in mind, and guide our nations into the uncertain future — eek! Hmmm, what's next: making slavery look fashionable again?

Paul Martin is another conservative (tax-evasion!) aristocrat wearing a liberal halloween costume. Currently the reason that the right and left seem so "centrist" is because they're agendas are essentially the same: rule the working class; take their money, and run for the hills. Then come back a few years later and act like a conquering hero — like Canada's ex prime minister Brian Mulroney now does.

The aristocratic politician diverts our attention away from his own plundering by accusing others as being the villains. When will we finally learn to see through their smoke screens?

Just to Clarify

I'm not saying, by the way, that all rich people think or act like this. Many have achieved wealth through legitimate means and give all but the shirt off their backs to help others. Unfortunately, you also won't find them in politics.

Just so you understand me, my definition of an aristocrat is someone who, in a ship wreck, happens upon a two man life raft and kicks others away so he'll have room to lie down. In place of a kick in the face, the aristocrat lies about a rescue ship being on the way — but it's definitely not one of his yachts. To add to the illusion, he tosses you two dollars from the twenty he stole from your wallet.

That usually does the trick. So we vote for him. Titanic: first class.

And as far as semantics go: "less government" means less gate keepers to prevent looting and "family values" means "Do what your husband and the Pope tell you to do — now go make dinner!"

The alpha male aristocrat politician wants less democracy and more power - why would he want to share his privileges? And all that protects us from him are our constitutions, our charters of rights, and our laws - most of which he secretly rewrites as we're watching American "Idle" from the couch on our big screen tv's.

The Distinguished Gentleman, From California

To propel ourselves back into the present tense: why did Hollywood strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger win in California? Not because he was qualified (um, did anyone ask?) but because he was famous. Being rich probably helped buy a few commercials as well. Being on Oprah didn't hurt either.

Here's a man who made 50 million dollars last year, 35 million the year before, and is now speaking for a 1.3 trillion dollar economy but also for the plight of those who work at McDonalds, Walmart and those who make handicrafts for tourists on a beach in Baha. Here is a man whose response to a sense of inferiority (yes, he's talked about it!) was to build up his body mass and become the ultimate dominant alpha male silver back gorilla on both the competitive muscle-flexing stage and the silver screen. Isn't political power the next obvious conquest after a life of competing for status?

It's obvious that many are still having trouble telling fantasy from reality: they voted for an illusion. Hopefully there's a man of substance behind the smoke screen of fame and fortune. If not...

Ironically, Arianna Huffington, an insightful, educated political columnist, author and frequent guest of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show, garnered only a few more votes than former child actor Gary Coleman. Though infinitely more qualified than Schwarzenegger and countless others on the ballot — she lost to "The Terminator." Sounds real friendly.

I mourn the upper body collective.

To Serve And Protect — Or To Skim And Neglect?

So what's the answer. Well, here's one you realitycheckers might never have considered: in my opinion, MOTHERS would make the best world leaders.

Mothers? What, am I losing it here? OK, it might sound biased, but why have we assumed that men would be the more fit to rule, considering what we know about that sexual domination agenda?

But before you go all "Arnold" on me and terminate this stream of thought, let me explain:

First of all, a mother leading the world is practical: everyone — and especially men — knows that mothers have the reputation for organizing and maintaining a balanced home existence while under the greatest of pressures to perform countless duties. Today's mother is not only a bearer and protector of children, but also a bread winner, an economist, a cook, a housekeeper and the janitor. Mothers are the care givers and orchestrators of what male politicians sell at election time as "family values" — a caring, home-like atmosphere which most of these chauvinists have no hand in maintaining.

Secondly, mothers have true and REAL LIFE experience of looking after other people and putting themselves second to those they serve. Is that not the very essence of governing: to serve the public?

Just consider that concept — and imagine the implosion that would create to male dominated religions and industries. But I'll bet if we took a poll, we'd find 95% agreement in favour of Mom-ocracy. Why? Because we've all been served by mothers!

Government is about helping the people, not helping ourselves to more pie at the cost of the people — which seems to be the traditional outcome of every alpha male-dominated stewardship of the planet — no matter what lies they tell you to get into your head.

Mom bakes the pie; the family eats it — why put someone in office whose never been near an oven?

Thirdly, "giving" seems a natural instinct for most mothers, whereas taking appears to be a natural instinct for her beneficiaries...the citizens of the home society she creates. Women give because if they didn't their babies would die. And since California has shown that we still vote like helpless little babies: voting in a compassionate, breast feeding matriarch would obviously make good sense all round. Family values — that's what I say.

"Open up — here comes the choo choo!"

Quit Stalling Already

So what's the holdup? Tradition. You think men are more capable? Don't kid yourself — if you're a man, you know the truth about who's really holding down the fort. You've seen your own mother in action.

Of course, that's not to suggest that all women are honorable, unselfish and honest. Far from it. We could all make our own list of women who can't be trusted in a crisis situation, starting with Loreena Bobbit, but the law of averages says that if you walk into a crowded room, chose an equal number of men and women and then put them on an island like on the Survivor TV series, you'd find that there's at least one person among them who everyone will gravitate toward when it comes to comfort, caring and getting the job done — and she'll probably turn out to be somebody's mother.

I'm serious about this. In fact, if reincarnation turns out to be a verifiable option for me in the aftermath of my death, then I'm going to come back as a female president of the United States. I'll be a lesbian, of course.

Remember: vote chicks! Today the kitchen — tomorrow the world!

Roland Kriewaldt

(Okay mom, how was that?)


Subscribe to free newsletter
Search Realitycheckers.com