RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Solnit writes: "Americans are skilled at that combination of complacency and despair that assumes things cannot change and that we, the people, do not have the power to change them."

(photo: Emma Cassidy)
(photo: Emma Cassidy)

Welcome to Year One of the Climate Revolution

By Rebecca Solnit, Guardian UK

26 December 14


Tiny towns standing up to Big Oil. Gigantic marches taking on the future. Technology that works. We started to save ourselves in 2014, but we must make 2015 worth remembering – before it’s too late

t was the most thrilling bureaucratic document I’ve ever seen for just one reason: it was dated the 21st day of the month of Thermidor in the Year Six. Written in sepia ink on heavy paper, it recorded an ordinary land auction in France in what we would call the late summer of 1798. But the extraordinary date signaled that it was created when the French Revolution was still the overarching reality of everyday life and such fundamentals as the distribution of power and the nature of government had been reborn in astonishing ways. The new calendar that renamed 1792 as Year One had, after all, been created to start society all over again.

In that little junk shop on a quiet street in San Francisco, I held a relic from one of the great upheavals of the last millennium. It made me think of a remarkable statement the great feminist fantasy writer Ursula K Le Guin had made only a few weeks earlier. In the course of a speech she gave while accepting a book award, she noted:

We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.

That document I held was written only a few years after the French had gotten over the idea that the divine right of kings was an inescapable reality. The revolutionaries had executed their king for his crimes and were then trying out other forms of government. It’s popular to say that the experiment failed, but that’s too narrow an interpretation. France never again regressed to an absolutist monarchy and its experiments inspired other liberatory movements around the world (while terrifying monarchs and aristocrats everywhere).

Americans are skilled at that combination of complacency and despair that assumes things cannot change and that we, the people, do not have the power to change them. Yet you have to be abysmally ignorant of history, as well as of current events, not to see that our country and our world have always been changing, are in the midst of great and terrible changes, and are occasionally changed through the power of the popular will and idealistic movements. As it happens, the planet’s changing climate now demands that we summon up the energy to leave behind the Age of Fossil Fuel – and maybe with it some portion of the Age of Capitalism as well.

A little revolution in a Big Oil town, a fracking ban in the Big Apple

To use Le Guin’s language, physics is inevitable: if you put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet warms, and as the planet warms, various kinds of chaos and ruin are let loose. Politics, on the other hand, is not inevitable. For example, not so many years ago it would have seemed inevitable that Chevron, currently the third biggest corporation in the country, would run the refinery town of Richmond, California, as its own private fiefdom. You could say that the divine right of Chevron seemed like a given. Except that people in Richmond refused to accept it, and so this town of 107,000 mostly poor non-white people pushed back.

In recent years, a group of progressives won election to the city council and the mayor’s seat, despite huge expenditures by Chevron, the corporation that also brought you gigantic oil spills onshore in Ecuador and offshore in Brazil, massive contamination from half a century of oil extraction in Nigeria, and Canadian tar-sands bitumen sent by rail to the Richmond refinery. Mayor Gayle McLaughin and her cohorts organized a little revolution in a town that had mostly been famous for its crime rate and for Chevron’s toxic refinery emissions, which periodically create emergencies, sometimes requiring everyone to take shelter (and pretend that they are not being poisoned indoors), sometimes said – by Chevron – to be harmless, as with last Thursday’s flames that lit up the sky, visible as far away as Oakland.

As McLaughin put it of her era as mayor:

We’ve accomplished so much, including breathing better air, reducing the pollution, and building a cleaner environment and cleaner jobs, and reducing our crime rate. Our homicide number is the lowest in 33 years and we became a leading city in the Bay Area for solar installed per capita. We’re a sanctuary city. And we’re defending our homeowners to prevent foreclosures and evictions. And we also got Chevron to pay $114m extra dollars in taxes.

For this November’s election, the second-largest oil company on Earth officially spent $3.1m to defeat McLaughin and other progressive candidates and install a mayor and council more to its liking. That sum worked out to about $180 per Richmond voter, but my brother David, who’s long been connected to Richmond politics, points out that, if you look at all the other ways the company spends to influence local politics, it might be roughly ten times that.

Nonetheless, Chevron lost. None of its candidates were elected and all the grassroots progressives it fought with billboards, mailers, television ads, websites and everything else a lavishly funded smear campaign can come up with, won.

If a small coalition like that can win locally against a corporation that had revenues of $228.9bn in 2013, imagine what a large global coalition could do against the fossil-fuel giants. It wasn’t easy in Richmond and it won’t be easy on the largest scale either, but it’s not impossible. The Richmond progressives won by imagining that the status quo was not inevitable, no less an eternal way of life. They showed up to do the work to dent that inevitability. The billionaires and fossil fuel corporations are intensely engaged in politics all the time, everywhere, and they count on us to stay on the sidelines. If you look at their response to various movements, you can see that they fear the moment we wake up, show up and exercise our power to counter theirs.

That power operated on a larger scale last week, when local activists and public health professionals applied sufficient pressure to get New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to sign legislation banning fracking statewide. Until the news broke on last week, the outcome had seemed uncertain. It’s a landmark, a watershed decision: a state has decided that its considerable reserves of fossil fuel will not be extracted for the foreseeable future, that other things – the health of its people, the purity of its water – matter more. And once again, the power of citizens turned out to be greater than that of industry.

Just a few days before the huge victory in New York, the nations of the world ended their most recent talks in Lima, Peru, about a global climate treaty – and they actually reached a tentative deal, one that for the first time asks all nations, not just the developed ones, to reduce emissions. The agreement has to get better – to do more, demand more of every nation – by the global climate summit in Paris in December of 2015.

It’s hard to see how we’ll get there from here, but easy to see that activists and citizens will have to push their nations hard. We need to end the age of fossil fuels the way the French ended the age of absolute monarchy. As New York state and the town of Richmond just demonstrated, what is possible has been changing rapidly.

In the shadow of terrible news from scientists, new technology that works – and a new kind of activism

If you look at innovations in renewable energy technologies – and this may be an era in which engineers are our unsung heroes – the future seems tremendously exciting. Not long ago, the climate movement was only hoping against hope that technology could help save us from the depredations of climate change. Now, as one of the six great banners carried in the 400,000-strong September climate march in New York City proclaimed, “We have the solutions.” Wind, solar and other technologies are spreading rapidly with better designs, lower costs and many extraordinary improvements that are undoubtedly but a taste of what’s still to come.

In parts of the United States and the world, clean energy is actually becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. The price of oil has suddenly plunged, scrambling the situation for a while, but with one positive side benefit: it’s pushed some of the filthier carbon-intensive, cutting-edge energy extraction schemes below the cost-effective point for now.

The costs of clean energy technology have themselves been dropping significantly enough that sober financial advisers like the head of the Bank of England are beginning to suggest that fossil fuels and centralized conventional power plants may prove to be bad investments. They are also talking about “the carbon bubble” (a sign that the divestment movement has worked in calling attention to the practical as well as the moral problems of the industry). So the technology front is encouraging.

That’s the carrot for action; there’s also a stick.

If you look at the climate reports by the scientists – and scientists are another set of heroes for our time – the news only keeps getting scarier. You probably already know the highlights: chaotic weather, regular records set for warmth on land and at sea (and 2014 heading for an all-time heat high), 355 months in a row of above-average temperatures, more ice melting faster, more ocean acidification, the “sixth extinction”, the spread of tropical diseases, drops in food productivity with consequent famines.

So many people don’t understand what we’re up against, because they don’t think about the Earth and its systems much or they don’t grasp the delicate, intricate reciprocities and counterbalances that keep it all running as well as it has since the last ice age ended and an abundant, calm planet emerged. For most of us, none of that is real or vivid or visceral or even visible.

For a great many scientists whose fields have something to do with climate, it is. In many cases they’re scared, as well as sad and unnerved, and they’re clear about the urgency of taking action to limit how disastrously climate change impacts our species and the systems we depend upon.

Some non-scientists already assume that it’s too late to do anything, which – as premature despair always does – excuses us for doing nothing. Insiders, however, are generally convinced that what we do now matters tremendously, because the difference between the best- and worst-case scenarios is vast, and the future is not yet written.

After that huge climate march, I asked Jamie Henn, a cofounder of and communications director for, how he viewed this moment and he replied, “Everything’s coming together while everything’s falling apart,” a perfect summary of the way heartening news about alternative energy and the growth of climate activism exists in the shadow of those terrible scientific reports. This brings us to our third group of heroes, who fall into the one climate category that doesn’t require special qualifications: activists.

New technologies are only solutions if they’re implemented and the old, carbon-emitting ones are phased out or shut down. It’s clear enough that the great majority of fossil fuel reserves must be kept just where they are – in the ground – as we move away from the Age of Petroleum. That became all too obvious thanks to a relatively recent calculation made by scientists and publicized and pushed by activists (and maybe made conceivable by engineers designing replacement systems). The goal of all this: to keep the warming of the planet to 2°C (3.5°F), a target established years ago that alarmed scientists are now questioning, given the harm that nearly 1°C of warming is already doing.

Dismantling the fossil-fuel economy would undoubtedly have the side effect of breaking some of the warping power that oil has had in global and national politics. Of course, those wielding that power will not yield it without a ferocious battle – the very battle the climate movement is already engaged in on many fronts, from the divestment movement to the fight against fracking to the endeavor to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and others like it from delivering the products of the Alberta tar sands to the successful movement to shut down coal-fired power plants in the US and prevent others from being built.

From Texas to Keystone and another tunnel in Canada, this movement is bigger – and better – than it looks

If everyone who’s passionate about climate change, who gets that we’re living in a moment in which the fate of the Earth and of humanity is actually being decided, found their place in the movement, amazing things could happen. What’s happening now is already remarkable enough, just not yet adequate to the crisis.

The divestment movement that arose a couple of years ago to get institutions to unload their stocks in fossil fuel corporations started modestly. It is now active on hundreds of college campuses and at other institutions around the world. While the intransigence or love of inertia of bureaucracies is a remarkable force, there have been notable victories. In late September, for instance, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – made fat upon the wealth of John D Rockefeller’s founding role in the rise of the petroleum industry – pledged to divest its $860m in assets from fossil fuels. It is just one of more than 800 institutions, including church denominations, universities, cities, pension funds and foundations from Scotland to New Zealand to Seattle, that have already committed to doing so.

The Keystone pipeline could have been up and running years ago, delivering the dirtiest energy from Alberta, Canada, to the US Gulf Coast with little fanfare, had activists not taken it on. It has become a profoundly public, hotly debated issue, the subject of demonstrations at dozens of presidential appearances in recent years – and in the course of this ruckus, a great many people (including me) were clued in to the existence of the giant suppurating sore of sludge, bitumen and poison lakes that is the Alberta tar sands.

Canadian activists have done a similarly effective job of blocking other pipelines to keep this landlocked stuff from reaching any coast for export. One upshot of this: quite a lot of the stuff is now being put on trains (with disastrous results when they crash and, in the longer term, no less disastrous outcomes when they don’t). This exceptionally dirty crude oil leaves behind extremely high levels of toxins in the mining as well as the refining process.

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported:

The Keystone XL pipeline was touted as a model for energy independence and a source of jobs when TransCanada Corp. announced plans to build the 1,700-mile pipeline six years ago. But the crude-oil pipeline’s political and regulatory snarls since then have emboldened resistance to at least 10 other pipeline projects across North America. As a result, six oil and natural-gas pipeline projects in North America costing a proposed $15 billion or more and stretching more than 3,400 miles have been delayed, a tally by the Wall Street Journal shows. At least four other projects with a total investment of $25 billion and more than 5,100 miles in length are facing opposition but haven’t been delayed yet.

The climate movement has proved to be bigger and more effective than it looks, because most people don’t see a single movement. If they look hard, what they usually see is a wildly diverse mix of groups facing global issues on the one hand and a host of local ones on the other. Domestically, that can mean Denton, Texas, banning fracking in the November election or the shutting down of coal-powered plants across the country, or the movement gearing up in California for an immense anti-fracking demonstration on 7 February.

It can mean people working on college divestment campaigns or rewriting state laws to address climate change by implementing efficiency and clean energy. It can mean the British Columbian activists who, for now, have prevented a tunnel from being drilled for a tar-sands pipeline to the Pacific Coast thanks to a months-long encampment, civil disobedience and many arrests at Burnaby Mountain near Vancouver. One of the arrested wrote in the Vancouver Observer:

[S]itting in that jail cell, I felt a weight lift from my shoulders. One that I was only partially aware that I have been carrying for years now. I am ashamed by Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty and our increasingly contemptible position on climate change. If these are the values of our society then I want to be an outlaw in that society.

This is the biggest of pictures, so find your role

Just before that September climate march in New York, I began to contemplate how human beings a century from now will view those of us who lived in the era when climate change was recognized, and yet there was so much more that we could have done. They may feel utter contempt for us. They may regard us as the crew who squandered their inheritance, like drunkards gambling away a family fortune that, in this case, is everyone’s everywhere and everything. I’m talking, of course, about the natural world itself when it was in good working order. They will see us as people who fiddled while everything burned.

They will think we were insane to worry about celebrities and fleeting political scandals and whether we had nice bodies. They will think the newspapers should have had a gigantic black box above the fold of the front page every day saying “Here are some stories about other things, BUT CLIMATE IS STILL THE BIGGEST STORY OF ALL.”

They will think that we should have thrown our bodies in front of the engines of destruction everywhere, raised our voices to the heavens, halted everything until the devastation stopped. They will bless and praise the few and curse the many.

There have been heroic climate activists in nearly every country on the planet, and some remarkable things have already been achieved. The movement has grown in size, power, and sophistication, but it’s still nowhere near commensurate with what needs to be done. In the lead-up to the UN-sponsored conference to create a global climate treaty in Paris next December, this coming year will likely be decisive.

So this is the time to find your place in a growing movement, if you haven’t yet – as it is for climate organizers to do better at reaching out and offering everyone a part in the transformation, whether it’s the housebound person who writes letters or the 20-year-old who’s ready for direct action in remote places. This is the biggest of pictures, so there’s a role for everyone, and it should be everyone’s most important work right now, even though so many other important matters press on all of us. (As the Philippines’s charismatic former climate negotiator Yeb Sano notes, “Climate change impinges on almost all human rights. Human rights are at the core of this issue.”)

Many people believe that personal acts in private life are what matters in this crisis. They are good things, but not the key thing. It’s great to bicycle rather than drive, eat plants instead of animals, and put solar panels on your roof, but such gestures can also offer a false sense that you’re not part of the problem.

You are not just a consumer. You are a citizen of this Earth and your responsibility is not private but public, not individual but social. If you are a resident of a country that is a major carbon emitter, as is nearly everyone in the English-speaking world, you are part of the system, and nothing less than systemic change will save us.

The race is on. From an ecological standpoint, the scientists advise us that we still have a little bit of time in which it might be possible, by a swift, decisive move away from fossil fuels, to limit the damage we’re setting up for those who live in the future. From a political standpoint, we have a year until the Paris climate summit, at which, after endless foot-shuffling and evading and blocking and stalling and sighing, we could finally, decades in, get a meaningful climate deal between the world’s nations.

We actually have a chance, a friend who was at the Lima preliminary round earlier this month told me, if we all continue to push our governments ferociously. The real pressure for change globally comes more from within nations than from nations pressuring one another. Here in the United States, long the world’s biggest carbon-emitter (until China outstripped us, partly by becoming the manufacturer of a significant percentage of our products), we have a particular responsibility to push hard. Pressure works. The president is clearly feeling it, and it’s reflected in the recent US-China agreement on curtailing emissions – far from perfect or adequate, but a huge step forward.

How will we get to where we need to be? No one knows, but we do know that we must keep moving in the direction of reduced carbon emissions, a transformed energy economy, an escape from the tyranny of fossil fuel, and a vision of a world in which everything is connected. The story of this coming year is ours to write and it could be a story of Year One in the climate revolution, of the watershed when popular resistance changed the fundamentals as much as the people of France changed their world (and ours) more than 200 ago.

Two hundred years hence, may someone somewhere hold in their hands a document from 2021, in wonder, because it was written during Year Six of the climate revolution, when all the old inevitabilities were finally being swept aside, when we seized hold of possibility and made it ours. “Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings,” says Ursula K Le Guin. And she’s right, even if it’s the hardest work we could ever do.

Now, everything depends on it. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-18 # brycenuc 2014-12-27 00:54
Polar bear population is increasing

Polar ice caps are increasing at both poles.

Global warming alarmists have been forced to acknowledge (however tepidly and begrudgingly) that world temperature rise has flattened in the face of unprecedented increases in CO2 in the atmosphere for the last 18 years.

Never in the history of the world has there been a consistent correlation between the atmosphere'a CO2 level and its temperature.

Added CO2 has a net negative feedback preventing the much-claimed runaway temperature rise.

Yes, CO2 can cause temperature rise, and yes, man produces CO2. But can CO2 ever be a controlling factor in world temperature? Absolutely not! Can it every be even a significant factor in world temperature? No!

Will curtailing fossil fuels jeopardize both world energy supply and world economy to the greatest detriment of the world's poor?


It is past the time for the warming alarmists to to examine the other side of the issue, the one that has both science and data on its side.
+6 # Pancho 2014-12-27 07:16
I assume you're Robert Bryce, the long time stooge for the fracking industry and the right wing Manhattan Institute.

Are you getting dough directly from the Koch brothers?

Just wondering.
-1 # Henry 2014-12-27 08:39
No, he isn't Robert Bryce.
-1 # grandma lynn 2014-12-27 21:20
Or are you one of the 3 Stooges, and we should guess which one?
+4 # tedrey 2014-12-27 07:37
brycenuc: We *have* examined "the other side"; that's why we're on this side.
+4 # maverita 2014-12-27 08:33
your pants are on fire and your nose is growing.
+4 # neis 2014-12-27 12:06
What a mess you leave:
@# brycenuc -- "Polar bear population is increasing"
That's crap:
"Answered by Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years."

@# brycenuc-- "Polar ice caps are increasing at both poles"

It's winter up there. It's SUPPOSED to be growing now. However, because so much was previously lost, it's still below average:
"Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for November extent over the satellite record is 4.7% per decade."


No time to debunk the rest of the bunk, but your longer term trend is clear. Keep your day job. Oh, maybe trolling climate denier IS your day job.
+3 # dandevries 2014-12-27 12:50
+3 # Dust 2014-12-27 14:02
You're an engineer and no stranger to statistical analyses, yes?

Most excellent.

Why do you always post and run without ever providing a shred of support for your statements? Isn't science suppose to be able to stand on its own merits?

Here - I'll do it for you.

Is this your own work or a condensation of Petschauser's paper? And while we're on that subject, why didn't he publish that work? It will take me a while to wade through your presentation and muck about with the SpectralCalc code, but I'll learn a lot.
+1 # grandma lynn 2014-12-27 21:21
Thank you so much, Dust. Time to unmask frauds.
+11 # Jerome 2014-12-27 01:36
Thank you Rebecca Solnit. Articles such as this need to be spread far and wide. And, because Ursula K Le Guin has a home here in my community, I'll make certain she sees this. I'll also see to it that this gets republished in some of the local online sites.
+1 # ritawalpoleague 2014-12-27 08:55
And, like you Jerome, I too thank Rebecca Solnit, most heftily. And, Rebecca Solnit, here's some info. for you, sister journalist:

Info. from good/reliable sources had fallen into my lap re. today's weather control caca, prior to my challenge to the press to investigate. Pull up: KRDO Waldo Canyon Fire Press Conference Weather Control.

Shortly thereafter, a man I did not know, approached me in a supermarket parking lot, and warned me that those who today who speak up and out re. weather control, or dare to 'whisleblow' re. what is now being done to control weather, are gotten rid of. I asked him, "Gotten rid of, do you mean fired?" He laughed a little, and responded: "No, I mean literally done away with."

This has been confirmed to me a couple of different ways. Pull up AlterNet, then search for: The Real Reason This Week's Massive Ice Storm is So Unusual. The documentary attached to the first/oldest comment made is very educating/truthful.

Although I'd been handed a transcript of a speech given at the Northern Command Center in Colo. Spgs., by an F.B.I. 'biggie', that listed those now considered 'terrorists' (environmental activists topped the list), I couldn't and won't quit outing info. I get. For example, fossil 'foolers' are behind all the geoengineering, i.e. chem. trailing, etc. for purpose of ending global warming via their weather control tactic. All while Kochs buy up H2O rights.
0 # lorenbliss 2014-12-27 16:26
Unfortunately, the "old inevitability" can no longer be overcome. The Ruling Class now has power-of-the-go ds supremacy granted by unimaginably high-tech weapons of surveillance and death.

This is the historically unprecedented element that makes today's power of rulers over their subjects uniquely irreversible -- not only absolute but effectively eternal.

In previous epochs, the technology of power was generally available to anyone within a given society. Government arsenals could be seized by overwhelming masses of people -- as they were in France c. 1789 or Russia c. 1917 -- and the contents used to foster revolution.

But now that is not possible; the arsenals are protected by nightmare weapons (like China's micro-wave death ray or NYPD's sonic weapons) against which there is absolutely no civilian defense. And the weapons themselves are so high-tech, their use is far beyond the capability of anyone save the death-and-oppre ssion specialists trained to use them.

Ms. Solnit fails to understand these factors because she disdains the study of weaponry and is therefore ignorant of historical reality.

Thus she fails to understand that we are to the present Ruling Class as First Nations peoples were to the post-Columbian European invaders. That is, we are utterly, hopelessly powerless. And so we shall remain until some unthinkable cataclysm alters the configurations of power by making the present-day technology of oppression non-functional.
0 # lorenbliss 2014-12-27 22:31
To clarify: I emphatically advocate political non-violence. But I also recognize the ironic truth that pacifism works only when backed by credible threats of violence. (See Harry Turtledove's “The Last Article,” for which Google.)

After 1917, and especially after World War II, the Soviet ability to foment Communist revolution forced capitalism to assume a humanitarian disguise. For example, had the British not yielded to Gandhi, the result would have been armed rebellion. Thus – remembering the Sepoy Mutiny of 1858 (which was provoked by Tsarist agents) – the British chose Gandhi instead.

A similar threat prompted the U.S. capitalists to grant the immediate demands of the Civil Rights Movement.

Now however there is no power on this planet capable of ameliorating capitalist savagery, nor will there ever be again. The capitalists will not allow it, and with the U.S. government and its absolute mastery of technology under total capitalist control, they can impose their will anywhere anytime.

That's why capitalism no longer hides the moral imbecility at its core. Thus today's non-violent activism is violently crushed; note the examples of Occupy and Ferguson. Environmentalis m is now officially “terrorism.” And when environmentalis m genuinely threatens capitalist profit, environmentalis m will be suppressed without mercy.

Thus too, as the capitalists revel obscenely in their terminal wealth, so will we be herded to extinction.
+1 # grandma lynn 2014-12-27 21:26
I was recently in a fall, off cement steps and propelling through the air to cement sidewalk ending. I was totally aware and had the awful thought: somehow I am going to land. That's what lorenbliss seems to present here - an awful truth that we would naturally not want to face, because it is too awful. I dislike those sci-fi movies that eliminate trees, birds, blue sky, sidwalks, kids on bicycles and make it all suited-up people with laser guns doing battle. And that is what lorenbliss seems to point to, that we have a bad future we are heading towards. But I want Solnit to be right, that if we know it now we can still change it now.
0 # lorenbliss 2014-12-27 22:49
Thank you for understanding me. I too want Ms. Solnit to be right -- indeed I desperately wish she were. But she reasons from Rev. King's false premise that "the moral arc of the universe...bend s toward justice," which as a student of history I know is the biggest Big Lie of all time.

The hideous truth of our species is that moments of "justice" are but random sparks -- rare and tiny and agonizingly brief -- in millennia of ever-intensifyi ng tyrannical darkness.

Moreover, the "ever-intensifyi ng" quality is the direct by-product of what is alleged to be progress -- that is, the technological and scientific advancements that have given our overlords the omnipotent power of gods and have meanwhile reduced all the rest of us to slaves in a global electronic concentration camp.

And even I hope there may still be some escape for us. But we will never find it as long as we continue deluding ourselves by smiley-faced PollyAnna failure to recognize the unspeakably grim reality of our present circumstances.

(Apropos your fall, given my age [74] and my own physical disabilities, I know the risks and empathize wholeheartedly. I dearly hope you were uninjured, and you have my heartfelt wishes for full recovery.)

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.