Something to think about:
Something to think about:
WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.
Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
…Personal change doesn’t equal social change.”
“Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation.”
“It is the modern scientific notion of nature that provides the foundation for the development of the productive forces. Within this notion, nature is reduced to a dead object, to lifeless material and spiritless matter. It is seen as an incessantly exploitable resource. Treated like this, nature finally becomes what it was always supposed to be within the logic of an unrestricted human “productivity” that aims at dominating it: namely, a socially constructed “second nature” instead of a self-creative “first (wild) nature”. This self-fulfilling prophecy denies of course the violence and destruction this process means for nature as a living – and therefore precisely not incessantly exploitable but destructible and finite – entity.
Seen as a system, nature appears as a mechanism, a machine. Finally, the machine itself is seen as nature and manages to pretend to have really taken first nature’s place.
Women have been seen as a part of this “machine nature” since the Enlightenment. Only male labor is regarded as “productive”, especially when applying machines (and women – as part of the machine). Female labor – for example, the “production of human life” – is denied any value. The same goes for any non-machine related activity and the productivity of nature itself.”
“I lost respect when I learned of Gandhi’s body hatred and even more that he refused to have sex with his wife for the last thirty-eight years of their marriage (in fact he felt that people should have sex only three or four times in their lives) I lost even more [respect] when I found out that in order to test his commitment to celibacy, he had beautiful young women lie next to him naked through the night: evidently his wife - whom he described as looking like a ‘meek cow’ - was no longer desirable enough [to] be a solid test”
Yeah, Gandhi was an unbelievably selfish individual. My biggest reason for losing respect for him, though, was that he criticized the Jews for defending themselves against the Holocaust — he insisted that they should have committed public mass suicide in order to “shame” the Germans instead of fighting back.
…. In order to shame the Germans? WTF? The Germans wouldn’t’ve been shamed - they’d’ve been thrilled to get their way so easily!
Gandhi’s exact words were: “But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” He also wrote an open letter to the British people in 1940 telling them to surrender to the Axis even if it meant accepting genocide:
“I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”
he was also anti-black (lost all respect for him after reading how he treated sub-saharan africans).
read this. everyone needs to know gandhi’s “true colors”.