WHO or WHAT? Politicians or Ideologies?

There is something about the way people treat politics that I have never fully understood. More specifically, it bothers me how easily people blame all their problems on politicians.
We demonize them, accuse them of sinning against humanity, make them responsible for absolutely all our troubles, and peek into their private lives to condemn them for their mistakes.

Now, while I won’t deny many politicians deserve a mob to raid them off their priviledged positions… Guys, it seems like we’re forgetting the whole meaning behind democracy. WE choose our representatives in the government.

My thoughts regarding the subject started when I was very young. I usually talk a lot about the 90’s and 00’s, when everything here went to hell.
I remember watching people on TV curse the president(s) with all their might, call for the people to go to Plaza de Mayo (from where the president governs), and manifest there, bring the people responsible out. In 2001, Fernando de la Rúa had to leave the place in a helicopter.
“Que se vayan todos” came to be the words by which that time in history will be identified forever -at least to me. “We don’t need politicians”, “they are all corrupt”, “we’re better off without politics”.

Now, granted, those were times of terrible social drama. Many people crossed the poverty line during that time. The manifestations were incredibly violent, and many people died at the hands of the repressive police body.
It was such a traumatic experience for everyone, to the present day there are still social groups that claim to be a-politic with pride holding their heads up, as if that was a compliment to their honor.

Again, I’m not defending the bastards that lead my country to its worst crisis; nor the rest of the corrupt people governing the world through history, and even right now. But I must admit that it’s shocking how people lay the blame so easily on the most visible faces, before looking a themselves and thinking “well, I did vote for the bastard”.

Moving away from my country for a little, where things now are anything but a-political, I find people behave in similar, yet slightly different ways in places like, for example, the US.
Just the other day I found an article that presented the readers with the following question: “how can the people trust a political leader that is known to have cheated on his/her marriage?”. It seemed odd to me that anyone would connect both issues.

I don’t care about this or that politician’s marital life. I care about them being politically honest and similar to my views, and to act according to their ideology. Whatever happens between they and their partners is honestly none of my business.
People might argue: “ah, but if he isn’t loyal to his/her wife/husband” -or something of the sort- “then how can you expect him to be loyal to his ideals?”. Well, since when do they have to be related? If you learned that the cashier at the supermarket is cheating on his wife, would you stop going to that supermarket?

People seem to forget all too often that the political life of politicians is their job. Sure, it’s a complicated world, there is a lot at stake, and they have a lot of personal involvement on it. But it is separated from what happens inside the walls of their homes.

And yet, the media obsesses with stuff like that.

The reason I’m bringing this up, is because I whole-heartedly believe that this way of thinking truly hurts politics. It ends up personalizing political ideals, and that is the worst thing you can do -and one of the points where I differ from peronism.
I think that it’s good to admire politicians, and to support them -but what you really need to fight for is not a leader, but an ideology. People are finite, and imperfect. Ideals can embrace people through generations and bring them together for the future. Depending on a single person is not a smart strategy on a long-term basis.

We need to stop treating politicians as celebrities, as saints, as demons, and start seeing them as what they’re supposed to be: representatives of a political party of this or that ideology.

I don’t know, this really bothers me.
During the year I was chosen to be the student’s centre’s president, I attended many reunions with lots of other centres, and their representatives. There, I saw the same mistake being committed over and over again, only in a slightly different way: the question they wanted to answer was “who are we fighting against?”.
I would usually stand up in the middle of heated discussions of blame being thrown here and there, only to say that looking for an enemy was what a short-sighted organization would do. That we need to find an ideology that represented all students, objectives to fight towards. Sure, it’d be more difficult, because building is always more complicated than destroying. But, in the end, it would be worth it…

Of course, I was epicaly ignored by most people, who only cared about pushing their parties’ structure further into our students’ organizations. Now-a-days these organizations are a mess, and I’m fully convinced that this way of approaching the political fight is one of the main reasons that’s true.

I guess that seeing how that worked was what has kept me from joining a party and working inside it. I love politics, and I want to contribute, but… Being smart.
If political involvement will mean being told who to idolize and who to demonize, then I’m better off walking my own path, even if alone.

What do you think? Is politics all about the ideas, or all about the face who’s representing it? Why?

Thanks for reading my mess,

Green…. ‘Peace’?

Recently, this ONG has been flooding Argentina’s media and streets with publicty about it’s 25th anniversary here; they brag about how they have been defending their ideals, and never gave to the greed when dealing with big corporations, or the government.

Now, this probably will be a bitter subject for some, because I know Greenpeace is a world-wide organization, defending the ideal of ecology, and that it has millions of suscribers.
But I really hate these people.

Let’s go back to the starts of this green movement, back in the 19th century. People knew by that time that resources wouldn’t last forever, even though it wasn’t a hot topic. By the time, many laboring rights were given to the proletarians in England, a big step forward for the workers of the world. Of course, the big men there didn’t like this step very much, and were looking for a good enough excuse for their retrograde attitudes to lay on.
That’s when father Malthus appeared, together with his poisonus ideals. He said, and thoroughly deffended, that at some point, the world’s productivity regarding mostly food would reach it’s limit, when all of it’s productible lands were being used already. This meant that the problem to attack from there on was the number of people living on earth, needing that food.
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, he said the problem for the future would be overpopulation! Now, this doesn’t sound so bad when explained like this, right? Seems legit: if we can’t produce that much food, we have to stop producing too many humans…?
So, Malthus kept on with this speech, and wrote that the part of the world that produced more births, were the poor people. You see where this is going? Oh, just keep on reading. So, if the poor people were having too many babies even while not having enough to feed them, then, if they escalated socially, and started having enough money for them, being stupid as they obviously were -cause they were poor-, they’d have even more babies. So, if more money for the poor meant more babies, and more babies meant the earth’s end was nearer, then what you’d logically have  to do, is take that money away from the poor people, and give it to the rich -and therefore more intelligent- people, to administrate it better.

I’m not kidding. This was an actual ideal from that time, and is still around us to the day!

The higher classes and bourgeois loved all this, and made sure to put all this ideas into action as quickly as possible.

With time, Malthus became a ‘respected thinker’ of his days, and his school of thoughts, called Malthusians or Negativists, were put against the Positivists when talking about the Earth’s future (Positivists said that the land’s productivity didn’t only depend on it’s area, but also and the science and technology put into it’s cultives).

Now-a-days, we know the Positivists were, if anything, closer to the truth than Malthus, specially after the Green Revolution took place in the agriculture field all over the world.

But the malthusians weren’t only known for this thoughts over agriculture. Their obsetion with overpopulation never grew thin, and the people to support them always existed. There was even a so-called ‘pseudo-science’ (even though it can’t even be considered that), that seemed to help this ideals, and that reached it’s peek of popularity during the first half of the last century: none other than Eugenesics.
Yes, yes, that science Hitler used to justify his hatred, his thoughts of superiority over other ‘races’, and his genocide of this ‘needless‘ people (such as african-american, jews, gipsies, homosexuals, and I can go on…).

Eugenesics have actually a pretty interesting history in all of Europe before WWII. As most had already accepted that +population = -resources, this ideology’s standing of ‘birth control of the ‘unfit’ (mostly people from the ‘third world’), and conservation of the south’s resources’, was like a ring to their fat fingers.
After the Holocaust, though, their direct racist speech, and wishes for the ‘unfit’s’ forced unfertilization, had to become more subtle, and, if possible, more confusing for those who could then find it offensive.

So their focus had to leave the population alone for a while, and point a subject that was still stinging, and that grew in influence in the last decades: nature. More specifically, the third world’s resources.
Why? Well, the first world already screwed their land bad with their own industrialization and progress, so they couldn’t just let those incapable and abnormal people from the south just do the same with theirs! I mean, what would the industrialized countries do then? See how they developed and grew in numbers as they did the previous centuries without worries, ‘wasting‘ their resources in their own growth? Hell no! They were gonna take control of what was, according to their thinking, ultimately theirs, as they were the best adapted, and more prone to surviving, part of the species.

That’s how you have Julian Huxley, member of Britain’s Eugenics Society, and it’s president from 1959 to 1962, creating and becoming director of the UNESCO, and then organizing the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). After some time, around the 50’s, he realised he  needed more money for this organization to work.  How concidential it is, that in 1961, the very well-known WWF (World Wildlife Foundation), one of the first conservational organization for raising founds, was founded, and localized in Gland, Switzerland, at the very same building, and sharing the administrative body with the IUCN. Pretty curious coming from a supposedly independent ONG, huh?

And there you have it, my friends, the origin of ecologist and conservarionist movements, and ONGs of the kind.

And this is all the same for Greenpeace, they come from the same kind of ideologies.

So, as a latin-american, and a jew, coming from a family and a land that has suffered so much from this kind of thinking, people, and ways of acting, of course I would be a little rencorous over them. Don’t think badly of me please. I’m just human. And, if you ask an eugenesist, or a conservationist, I’m just an unfit.

Please, DO look around for this organizations and people. You’ll find some very interesting facts. I personally recommend ‘Ecofascismo’ (if you can find it, and read in spanish), by Jorge Orduna, for more information and proven facts. Here’s an article from when his book was published. I’ll tell you if I can find links in english.

Well then, what do you think about organizations like Greenpeace, or the WWF? Have you had any experiences with them, or the like? Did you know about their relationships with Eugenesics? If so, do share!

Until next time.