National Security 2

I do not feel safe. I think we need to spend a whole lot more resources to make me feel safe. I acknowledge that there are inherent dangers in the XXI. century, but I believe my fears are well founded. It is a matter of security. It is the matter of security of the area where we live, our values and our freedoms. It is not national security, it is a matter of Community Security. These things are not compatible.

Community Security

Source: Sentient Monkey

Thinking in artificially created groups or inorganic organisations (aka international or transnational corporations) will surely endanger Community Security. Even the idea of national security will most certainly create barriers between various groups of humans. National security will create “us” and “them”, where “us” must always outgun “them”. The politicians will tell us that and they will point at arms-dealing corporations as our saviours. But what if we want peace? Should we use weapons to destroy weapons? Surely this way we will run out of weapons sooner or later (thanks Bill for the idea!). Or die trying.

What is more important: a piece of cloth on a piece of wood (also know as a flag symbolising a country, a king, a queen, an ism and so on) or food, shelter, clothes and love? You can not eat a flag, but it is good to soak up blood spilled in its defence or to cover up atrocities committed in its name.

Community Security on the other hand demands a closer look on 7 billion of us and our surroundings. Or perhaps we should start with the surroundings and not focus so much on ourselves. Since Copernicus, and his idea of a world not centered around the Earth, humanity started shifting from an anthropomorphic world-view. Funnily enough Copernicus, a Renaissance man, who was claimed by the Germans as a German and by the Poles as a Polish, would likely to find it absurd to belong to any one nation.

So based on that angle, is it important to save every child? What is more important: to save a human child or a non-human child? Is it a blasphemy to even consider saving animals instead of humans? After all animals, according to some religion, were created for the use of mankind. I hope you noticed more than one issue with that statement. There is no mankind, just humankind, but that word also shows another symptom of our sick system: male-dominance as Terrence McKenna and others pointed it out.

I go to bed thinking about allowing our fellow Earthlings enough space to live, regardless of the number of legs, fins or brain-size. Not just humans. That is why I do not feel guilty turning down (paid) fundraisers busking for donation to save a group of humans somewhere. You should not feel guilty either. You can’t save everyone. On the other hand, have we considered just leaving them enough resources to live, so they can “save” themselves? The idea of “saving” humans or animals implies power over them. A power no one has. The power we have is to realise we need not take resources from others to live.

Clean air is a resource, just like clean water, clean soil, healthy forests, shorelines or mountains. The environment is a finite resource for all who live in it, so it must be safe from unlimited logging, mining, fracking or other pollutions, including spiritual pollution. So educate yourself to be able to muster an argument for community security. If you need to learn how to put it in words just listen to David Suzuki, Jacque Fresco, Robert Moss or others like them. And for your own safety do not “google” them, but use search engines which are not spying on you, such as DuckDuckGo or IxQuick.

“I believe that, seven generations beyond us, those who look back on our time will find that it was the cry of the trees that helped to restart the dreaming and foster the understanding that we must dream not only for ourselves but also for our communities and for all that shares life with us in our fragile bubble of air.”
― Robert Moss, Active Dreaming: Journeying Beyond Self-Limitation to a Life of Wild Freedom