It seems as if solution-oriented debate follows an exponential curve that never actually crosses the line to crucial truth. I have consistently observed the shying away from (or knee-jerk reaction against) suggesting any real specific solutions, like cost/tax-free sovereign veganic homesteading land & water being a birthright of every individual, and the Non-Aggression Principal (the former solution actually just being an expression of the latter). So much so that they are rejected a priori/outright, based on the belief that "there is no one way." So, by trying to avoid some totalitarian/imperialist/tyrannical bad idea that was seen as the one way by ignorant people in the past, sound conclusive ecological/holistic ideas and orincipals that are introduced, which have none of those negative attributes, are still rejected in favor of further/perpetual "dialogue."
Inclusive/open conversation/debate is crucial of course, but when it becomes the god of radical thought and activism, worshiped above all else, it's just another brick in the wall, or I should say it is the wall. If people aren't willing or able to make crucial truth, rationality, and ethics their main concern, put simply as The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), focusing on the ethic and the solution, rather than just more ultimately inconsequential activist news and tangential ramblings, we will just continue to have potential positive social transformation dissipated into nothingness, off-target meeting by off-target meeting, off-target article by off-target article, unproductive off-target action after off-target action, while the ecological/social/health crisis worsens even more, and a dystopic nightmare becomes more the reality.
Thankfully there has been growing recognition of the simple fact that if we are going to disconnect from destructive social-systems of slavery (and thereby stop funding them via taxes and consumerism), we necessarily must connect with the Earth (and each other) in a more direct, natural, sustainable, self/community-sufficient and unobstructed way, ideally via communities of sovereign veganic homesteads. Yet, frustrating to see and hear, is another thing so many activists seem caught in, going around and around like motorcycles in a small metal sphere at a circus, the common "Yes, but we're on stolen land." This simplistic statement makes no distinction between those that actually did the killing and stealing and those who were/are peaceful migrants and their respective ancestors (oftentimes wrongly amalgamated into the terms "settler" or "invader," with its supposed inherent ubiquitous cultural/behavioral trappings), nor what actually comprises actual invasion and stealing of land and what does not, i.e., what distinguishes natural/legitimate migration/travel of humans on the Earth, compared with violent colonial conquest; equating the two and thinking that stupid false equivalency is an expression of virtue is such a sabotaging blunder I wonder who is actually pushing this idea, grassroots activists or FBI/CIA, et al. To not be able to distinguish between aggressive and non-aggressive action is such a huge oversight, and frankly so dumb, I wonder if not originating just from agents "ensuring national security," if it's not more originating from demonic possession and influence, the devil turning people away from what's most important (by convincing them it's unimportant or wrong in some way), and encouraging them to focus extensively on everything but those crucial ethics and solutions that actually would significantly change the world for the better. And because this important detail, namely the detail of the NAP, is not identified and supported, the very much needed back-to-the-land movement (improved to incorporate the NAP by being vegan and supporting individual sovereignty) becomes incapacitated by a sort of radical version of political correctness, coupled with irrational "white guilt" (and blame). The clear solution of everyone (of course including people of indigenous ancestry) having their sovereignty and birthright to a fair share of land & water, is lost in race/collectivist-minded conversations that go absolutely nowhere. They go nowhere because they are based on a false premise, namely that women & men are not actually individuals.
Individuals cannot be accurately or fairly judged as some collective entity. Yes of course privilege exists, and racism against Native peoples and "people of color" still exists, but to treat all peaceful people of European ancestry as if they are white devils who don't also deserve sovereignty and their birthright is just exercising the very evil that is being deplored. "We don't want to repeat the model of colonialism/genocide/white supremacy that led us to the current situation." Of course! Can we please move forward from that ultra-obvious and basic lets-not-be-like-Columbus ethic? Ironically, by getting stuck on such a simple gross level genocide-is-bad ethic (that should be part & parcel to any mind that isn't completely delusional), the more subtle and comprehensive root of that, aggression, is not even named. The Non-Aggression Principle, supposedly "debunked" by some nonsense articles, is left behind in favor of repeating the "decolonize" mantra. Rather than discerning whether offered solutions are in actual violation of being violent/oppressive or not, we have subterfuge standing in the way of some rational consensus toward building a just society. Again I wonder if this sentiment is really grassroots in origin, or actually spread from State agencies as neutralizing sabotage (agencies which based on what history is available, like how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was treated by them, seem to represent demonic powers most fully manifest in the physical, basically working full-time to undermine anything really good in the world).
The same psychological dynamic of intellectual black holes is at play with insubstantial justifications for the mass enslavement and murder of animals, e.g., when people say they have the right to do so for no other reason than tradition, even though hunting is more a post-colonial tradition than was prior, due to forced/genocidal displacement from a single-area land-based lifestyle, and even though being a hunter unnecessarily is clearly an expression of a dominator mindset toward animals, no matter what "honoring" is said to be exercised. The blunt clarity needed concerning the supposedly complicated issue of how humans should treat animals is that if you don't care about animals being physically/emotionally tortured and killed for absolutely no good reason, then you are being less compassionate than those who do care about it. Enough with the denial around that obvious fact; veganism is a necessary component of an ethically consistent liberation philosophy and action strategy. To say vegans "shouldn't be so judgmental" is absurd, all activism is founded on judging some things as better than others. African slavery was rightly judged wrong by abolitionists, and just like vegan abolitionists today, they were ridiculed by their morally lacking counterparts with nonsensical quasi-intellectual rubbish. New-age style "Don't judge" b.s. that has seeped into radical theory/rationalizations is of no use or value whatsoever; of course we should be sure our judgment is sound, and be understanding and forgiving, recognizing our own imperfections and that the truth is gradually learned by all of us, but that doesn't mean that having selective judgment, as if it matters who is murdering and enslaving other sentient beings unnecessarily, actually holds up to rational moral scrutiny. To make this even more clear: if you can purchase or grow plant foods (like hempseed) for your survival, but choose not to simply because of personal tastes (of food and lifestyle), that is not a morally strong/valid position. And those who do make the more compassionate choice don't deserve any ridicule for doing so or for advocating that choice.
~~~
Related short talk: