Why not now?

[Ron Tocknell]

Do we need leaders? I have asked this question many times over the years and the answer that comes back from all but the most diehard anarchists has always been "YES". Without our leaders, I am told, there would be chaos.

Well, define 'chaos'... and compare it to what we have:

We have increasing pollution, we have corporate-oriented war and occupation and oppression, we have corporate generated famine, there have been attempts to test nuclear weapons on the moon's surface and now the worst ecological disaster in the history of our civilisation has poisoned the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico to the point that the effects will continue for many decades to come and may already be beyond recovery. The methane bubbles that result from this would cause global havoc if they were to ignite.

Those we have elected to govern in the interests of the people have chosen instead to serve the interests of powerful corporations (who, in turn, serve only the interests of their shareholders... and, of course, the politicians whose favours they so generously curry) and this is rarely in the interests of the voting public. The result of this is the excessive and dangerous power of the petrochemical industries, the pharmaceutical industries, the banks and so forth... and the consequent pollution that has led to global warming and now the devastating pollution of our seas. Our leaders have chosen to give the task of overseeing the cleanup to BP... who, in turn, are choosing to ignore demands to stop using Corexit... which just happens to be a product in which they have a financial interest. Corexit is more toxic than the oil and cannot be removed or neutralised.

Our leaders have contrived an invasion of Iraq to serve the interests of the petrochemical industry resulting in further unrest and greater instability in the country, countless deaths of civilians and fuelling deeper ill feeling toward Western cultures.

Just how bad does it have to get to qualify as chaos?

We have chaos already and it has resulted BECAUSE of our leaders. We don't see it because we are so used to it. Our leaders are not protecting us from chaos, they are creating it.

There are pressure groups for this issue, mostly in the US. However, they are tackling this by appealing to congress for solutions. The trouble I have with this approach is that it is a little like asking the vandals to do something about all the vandalism.

The question that bothers me is: just how far can the individuals and institutions that WE put in a position of power go before we decide to remove them from their exalted position? Exactly how much are we prepared to take from the faceless entities we call 'Them'?

At what point are we going to accept that THEY are not going to provide a solution?

Where does power reside... in the head that wears the crown or in the hand that places the crown upon the head?

The approach I want to take here is to take back the power that we have assigned to those who choose to serve the interests of corporations above those of the people who put them in that position. We all seem to have an opinion about what THEY ought to do about this or that. Well, what should WE do? We've tried leaving it up to our leaders and look where it's got us! We really need to expand to a large enough number to be heard. We've seen the ineffectual nature of petitions. They are far too easy to ignore. We've tried writing to MPs and congressmen and, well, let's be realistic: who are they going to pay more attention to? Their party leaders who can sack them tomorrow or the voting public who will have to wait four years before an opportunity to vote them out arises? Hardly rocket science, is it?

We've tried the chanting in the street with placards approach... well, how many repetitions of "WADDAWE WANT? BLAH-DE-BLAH! WHENDAWE WANNIT? NOW!!" do you think it might take to motivate our governments into paying the slightest attention to what the people want? Or do they just shut the windows and turn up the volume on the TV?

And, God knows... history is full of disastrous examples of the 'bloody revolution' approach with precious few examples of a satisfactory outcome.

How about just saying "NO"? Remember Ghandi's Civil Disobedience movement? It proved to be an unstoppable force against a British Empire that enjoyed far more freedom to do as it wishes than our governments do today.

We pay our taxes and have no say in how they are spent. We continually consent to the poisoning of our environment, the slaughter and oppression of our people and the stripping away of public liberties. We listen to the lies and know that they are lies and yet, rather than upset the status quo, we do nothing.

What can we do?

We can stop playing their game for a start.... such as starving the banks of cash. Invest in a good strong safe if you can and, when your paycheck goes in, withdraw all but enough to keep the account open and deal in cash only. Check out http://unitedwestrike.com/ and here, you will find information about staging one-day strikes by not only staying home from work but not spending a single penny on that day. Watch the John Harris video, 'It's an Illusion' and learn about the difference between charters, statutes and actual laws. It will be an eye-opener, I promise you. You have more power than you realise and the language of law is designed to ensure that you don't realise it. We don't have to take to the streets in conflict... in fact, we MUST not do that. We just have to acknowledge our power and say "No". But, for this to be effective, it must have unity. It must have numbers. So it must grow into a single voice that cannot be silenced.

We've dozed off and we're slumbering in the illusion that those who hold such unchallengeable power exercise it purely in our best interests. How nice of them! Particularly when we're living in an age in which an honest person is regarded either as a saint or a fool.

A saint or a fool! Well, our leaders are not saints and they certainly are not fools... so where does that leave them?

This has got to stop at some point... so why not now? Why not now when they are initiating wars to generate profit? Why not now when they are poisoning our planet to line the pockets of the undeserving few? Why not now when they have poisoned the seas perhaps beyond recovery? Why not now when tomorrow might just be too bloody late?

Please urge your friends to unite in this.

[Ron Tocknell]

I had the same hopes about Obama but, when you think about it, of course he was bound to be just another politician because that's how the system works.

You're right that we need order but the reality is that we don't have order at the moment. The economy is out of control, policies are out of control,corporations are out of control and our leaders are out of control. I don't think that is any kind of order.

Order is what we must now demand and it is going to be up to us to establish order. But, to do that, there must be unity between the people. It is up to the people to withdraw consent and withdraw support. This can only be done by civil disobedience and a refusal to acknowledge the authority of those who are stripping away our liberties.

It aint gonna be comfortable but the alternative is unthinkable.

Joan Gregori said:

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" -- Albert Einstein

Ron, I agree with you. However, with billions of people on the planet, we have to have some kind of order...just not the kind we have now! I had big hopes when President Obama was elected. I was hoping he wasn't just another politician.

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that things pretty much suck more and more. Financially, IMO, we are in a depression--not a recession as they want us to believe.

[Jeanne]

Perhaps we need to define what a leader is... and what it is not. Is it celebrity - something that has become synonomous with high level leaders?
Ask people who are the CEO's of the world's ten largest corporations... most won't know. We are always hearing that big business runs the world... but who are they? What are their names? Why aren't they celebrities?

So are the manufactured and sold celebrity 'leaders', really the leaders? And if they're not serving us as our leaders, who are they serving?

[Mark Allen Frost]

I've been working with Seth on the topic of Visionary Leadership. His advice is to become the visionary leader and lead according to visionary principles in your individual collectives. He says that political leaders are becoming irrelevant as we awaken in this timeframe.

[Ron Tocknell]

That's a good question, Jeanne. Unfortunately, the process of becoming a leader is by rising through some hierarchical system, which, when you think of it, is inherently flawed. To be eligible for rising through the ranks, one must be good at the position currently held. Consequently, roles at which we show skill and talent are always temporary because we are always eligible to be promoted out of that role. This process continues until we are promoted into a role in which we are incompetent. And there we stay.

The further up the hierarchical ladder one looks, the more people we will find that have reached their level of incompetence. Sadly, they are the ones that make decisions.

 

I read a lot of material about secret inner sanctums of those who allegedly rule the world etc. My view is that we get the government we deserve. Leadership does not have to be authoritarian power. Most of us are quite capable of listening to and heeding the advice of those who have no power to force us to do their bidding. Power, in this instance, is a substitute for wisdom.... and a very poor substitute.

I don't see why an effective leader has to be a celebrity. He or she has to be known to the community and the guidance offered has to be trusted and respected but this is not the same as celebrity. In a true democracy, the leader is chosen by the people and remains in a position of leadership only as long as it benefits the community. They should be selected from the community, not from a limited range of candidates put in place by the corporations who want to ensure that their interests are protected. What we have both in the UK and the US is a veneer of democracy. We have a limited choice of corporate puppets from which to make a selection.

 

In a true democracy, the leaders are in service, not in power.

Jeanne said:

Perhaps we need to define what a leader is... and what it is not. Is it celebrity - something that has become synonomous with high level leaders?
Ask people who are the CEO's of the world's ten largest corporations... most won't know. We are always hearing that big business runs the world... but who are they? What are their names? Why aren't they celebrities?

So are the manufactured and sold celebrity 'leaders', really the leaders? And if they're not serving us as our leaders, who are they serving?

[Ron Tocknell]

"He says that political leaders are becoming irrelevant as we awaken in this timeframe."

I sincerely hope this is true. It would be a sign that we are waking up... the first Real Awakening. The whole concept of leadership has become lost in a paranoid obsession with control. We need order and we need organisation but mobs arise from disempowerment. Terrorism is a product of oppression. The more methods of increasingly tighter control that is forced upon us, the more it is needed. Like a child wriggling to free its hand from its parent's grip. Not to run amok but simply to walk at the parent's side unrestricted.

 

Society does not just need adjusting, it needs restructuring.

Mark Allen Frost said:

I've been working with Seth on the topic of Visionary Leadership. His advice is to become the visionary leader and lead according to visionary principles in your individual collectives. He says that political leaders are becoming irrelevant as we awaken in this timeframe.