When people in powerful or influential positions speak or act against or in favour of an issue then they will almost certainly be doing so from self-interest. True, a few people in high positions don't focus on self-interest, but that's rare.
Look at the brexit mob: multi-millionaire Boris Johnson, hedge-fund multi-millionaire Farage, multi-millionaire Rees-Mogg.... not to mention their long list of wealthy backers... and super-rich contributors like Aaron Banks with his mysteriously sourced £8m to promote brexit.
Look at the tobacco lobby that for decades shoved-out propaganda solid with lies denying evidence for the health implications of smoking. Why did the public believe them rather than medics or independent scientists/statisticians?
The power of propaganda, as Edward Bernays famously demonstrated, is colossal.
After decades of climate scientists' warnings, we now see clear evidence that BIG corp propaganda that contradicted science was pure lies. Why this wasn't obvious to most people is a matter for psychologists - it's always baffled me how anyone can think pumping vast amounts of fumes from burnt fossil fuels into the atmosphere isn't going to cause some kind of change, probably with negative consequences.
But to find the truth in any situation like this: ALWAYS 'follow-the-money'.
And look at the monumental cost of those negative consequences: more violent than normal hurricanes... increasing loss of land from encroaching seas, of constructing sea-defences, of worse floods and droughts, extremes of temperature....
Even the £multi-billion profits from beef production, from airlines' 24,000+ flights per day in Europe alone mostly to-&-from holiday destinations, from cheap-to-run coal-burning power-stations, from diesel cars, lorries and ships, from the fuel of all the unnecessary car journeys, the idling and inching of traffic congestion... even all those vast profits are nothing compared with the cost of failing to make immediate corrective changes... scarcely to mention 'entrepreneurs' plundering and destroying climate-sustaining rain-forests to produce beef or soya or palm-oil - or to just sell the wood - so they can become millionaires before the biosphere flips.
ALWAYS: 'follow-the-money'.
Everyone should recognise who's speaking-up for BIG corp, who their representatives, investors, backers are, and recognise their propaganda for the lies it is - so whether or not you care about the welfare of the planet, future generations of all species, etc., then at least when you vote (in a polling booth - or 'with-your-feet' on an issue) you'll know without doubt which side you're on: BIG corp's short-term profits or everyone else (including future generations - ad infinitum)? Your choice.
During the brexit debate, before the referendum in June 2016, I delivered 'REMAIN' leaflets around areas near where I live. Due to conflicting propaganda all across the media, the lies, distortions and so on, many people were - unsurprisingly - confused. Several people told me as I gave them a leaflet that they didn't know which side to vote for: 'Leave' or 'Remain'. My reply wasn't to offer my own opinion: that borders favour only the 'Fascist' rich (who can get around them), or any of the many other excellent reasons for remaining in the EU. Nor did I mention the downsides like the limitations for travel to and around the EU, or living there, and the end of reciprocal healthcare, etc., etc. Instead, I replied that they should look to anyone in a responsible position (including politicians) whose opinions they'd always respected or who at least demonstrated a social conscience. This would, I hoped, get them thinking and making a judgement more in tune with their personal philosophy.... if that meant vote 'Leave' then fine: I've always thought people should vote for what they truly believe.
My contention with every election/referendum is that propaganda, lies, etc., distort the reality of what each side actually stands for and what interests they represent - this isn't a problem for intellectuals who may even enjoy the contest, but many people end-up either confused or anyhow voting against their better judgment.
Every effort should be made, I think, to correct this distortion of truth that always goes-on during the lead-up to an election - so that everyone can make a properly informed decision based on what they believe as part of their personal life philosophy.
In a recent radio interview, the author Robert Harris was asked how he assessed the public's attitude. He replied that he thought they comprised about 10% bright intellectuals, 45% decent and intelligent, 35% stupid and gullible, and 10% Fascists.
If there's any truth in Harris's assessment then it's a fine balance - at least in the UK. Since the UK doesn't have proportional representation then an all-powerful govt (with a majority) can be elected by less than a third of the population. This is because, as is usual, about another third don't cast their vote and is how BIG corp has been able to maintain control at least during the last 4-decades and essentially a lot longer than that:
In a 2012 interview, Warren Buffet (the notorious US multi-billionaire) concurred; in decidedly upbeat tones he said, paraphrasing:
"Through two world wars, through various recessions and other turmoil, we still have the status quo."
- by which he meant: despite everything, he and his corporate pals had not released their grip for an instant, but had maintained the global plague of poverty, misery, despair and war that had kept him and his elite kind in untold wealth, and (most crucially) in control, for the best part of two centuries...
As for the Blair era and as eventually became clear to everyone, New Labour was a misnomer for New Tory: for instance, in a Sept 2008 article in the New York Review of Books Jonathan Raban wrote:
'Blair and Brown proved to be disconcertingly faithful stewards of the legacy they inherited from Thatcher and Major, and the biggest change in Britain since 1994 [...] has been the impact of the global digital economy, along with all the consequences, domestic and foreign, that have followed from Downing Street's blind collusion with the Bush administration in the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror.'
Most of us are familiar with poignant quotes such as:
"That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of Nations is as shocking as it is true..." - Thomas Paine
"Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible." - A. Philip Randolph
That's to say, once again, BIG corp (the City, if you like) is in full control.
Regarding climate this BIG corp power spells disaster for billions of people, most species of higher animals, and much more.
I think only insects, small rodents and birds survived the devastation that wiped-out the dinosaurs; thought to have been climate change caused by the impact of a huge comet. Presumably, no higher animals had the ability to adapt or locate breathable air and food?
I imagine a few humans, especially with technology, would survive if the current trend in climate change continues and the biosphere flips... assuming the flip or succession of flips isn't too extreme.
But the public everywhere should understand the choice they have and what to do to make their choice influence government decisions. Whether a BIG corp-run pseudo-democracy like the UK or a BIG corp-run dictatorship, we need to wake-up and co-operate against BIG corp (the City), and depose their toady politicians or dictators - unless we prefer to act like lemmings.
If, as in the UK, about a third of people continue to just watch from the sidelines and not take part, then so be it: BIG corp will destroy us and self-destruct into the process - though in maybe 10,000- (or is it 100,000-?) years when the biosphere has re-stabilised, another generation of animals, even another version of 'us' may emerge? Who can say? And what does it matter to us anyway all that time ahead?
------------ // -----------
....OCT - 19