Thinking Outside the Box is Not Enough

But Is Action “Actionable”?

There are currently a great many calls for actionable operations to replace capitalism, to replace the corporate oligarchy to the extent that it exists, and to move outside of more “traditional” means of conducting business. The underlying concern and major challenge is that virtually all of these responses will adversely impact the proverbial powers that be … the oligarchy if you will, or corporate influence on governance, and even the extent to which the government can rule and to what extent it is held accountable by the people directly.

Is this a realistic approach however? At this stage of human growth and development, is it really possible to believe that we can entirely change the base structure of society across the globe? Much less eradicate or even radically change the proverbial powers that be within those societies? While it may sound somewhat conspiratorial to use such a cliché phrase, there is ample historical evidence and current proof that government is not the solution to the problems facing the world today.

At the end of the day, it should be recognized that any major collapse of the organizational structure of governance currently in place and/or the collapse of either the economic or financial systems would likely result in nothing less than a global war. The cost of such a war in previous times was costly enough in terms of devastation to both the environment and humanity. Such a war these days, with modern technology and even full-automation in play, would likely be even more devastating to both humanity and the planet. This should be noted, is not a viable solution for those that are actively concerned with the world we live in, if not the humanity populating the planet.

Many of my (our – from an organizational standpoint … but specifically “my”) ideas are controversial in nature. (This will be evidenced by some of the articles posted here over the course of time) Still, while some smaller projects may be allowed to proceed, is anyone so delusional as to believe that all of the proverbial powers that be will not join in an open revolt against programs that have the potential to be so disruptive to the societal norms already in place? What about when these “disruptive” ideologies threaten those corporate and governing agents and agencies to the point of their very existence? Does anyone believe for a moment that the government, if not those behind the scenes such as those controlling the global financial interests, will not come in and forcefully shut such programs down post haste?

This propensity for the government, no matter the cause, to shut down many such programs has already been historically evidenced. In the United States, many programs that would provide for the direct benefit of both humanity and the environment are ruled “unjust” due to legislative “regulation by fiat” often completely unaccountable to the people. People have been fined and even threatened with jail for trapping rainwater or digging ditches on their property. What will happen when large-scale canals and dams are built to allow for the creation of fully natural ecological systems in the forms of food forests? The very government agencies that are tasked with protecting the environment, will shut these programs down, preventing so much as the removal of dead brush and allowing the natural threats to destroy vast swathes of land that could have not only been saved, but added to the ability of the government to provide a surplus of goods and products to its people.

Nobody is getting high smoking hemp. Despite the frequent misuse of the word, Industrial Hemp is not marijuana and you are not going to get high no matter how much you smoke. If my memory serves me correctly, one-third acre of hemp can produce as much paper as ten acres of pulpwood trees. Hemp oils have multiple uses. Fiber from the hemp plants can be used for textiles and even in carbon fiber production to reduce the need for steel. So why is industrial hemp still illegal in so many of the “Industrialized” or “First-World” nations?

The answer to these and many other problems is in fact quite simple. Those who control the reigns of government, either through political power and influence as politicians, or as lobbyists, fundraisers or even the banking cartels and banksters that control global finance, refuse to allow any interference with their hold on power. Small scale projects will always be allowed and necessary so that governments can “retain face” and “prove” their benevolence and environmental concerns to the world. Still, how many viable, large-scale projects has any government ever endorsed, much less funded? Such a radical solution will (and should) introduce an entirely new paradigm. The new paradigm would see a major focus on the direct and tangible benefit to both humanity and the world in which we all must live.

But how is that going to do anything other than upset the balance of power and the current status quo? Regardless of how conspiratorial it may sound, there are in fact very real “powers that be”. These are seen in the form of governments, corporations and the banking cartels and that is a verifiable reality that must be faced if we are to ever implement any meaningful change on a scale large enough to make a real difference.

Hence, it should be easy to see that merely “thinking” outside of the proverbial box is not a viable solution … and never has been. Neither is building outside of the box going to be possible at any meaningful level, lest they allow their hold on power to be challenged. The only viable solution seems to be building within the limits of the current system, and from that, providing a solid, systemically sustainable base from which expansion will become not just possible, but inevitable. Only when the current system can see physical and tangible proof that there is a better way, will the people become fervent enough in their beliefs to stand united and demand a change for the better of humanity and the planet.