Chapter Three: Our Government
Isolationism or Globalization: Kick in Head or Kick in the Groin?
Isolationism, or distorted nationalism, can bring suffocation and stagnation, is impractical, and cannot be completely or indefinitely maintained in a globally connected world.
Globalization, or global collaboration, can bring the loss of identity, culture, and independence.
I am personally very concerned with the current representations and extremes of both of these. I am also concerned that in these times there are forces that would have us choose between these, instead of other options. Based on my own perceptions of the implementation of these, I relate that choice to the following crude analogy: Would you prefer being kicked in the head or the groin?
Dangers of the Slippery Slope
Sometimes the gradual implementation is more concerning than the spur of the moment. The spur of the moment action has less true forethought and can be brought into the light for response easier than the gradual action that has an implanted foothold. The gradual indoctrination and justification into anything can be slow, incremental, and of negligible concern until it is too late. The gradual chain of events and eventualities that branch from the slow and incremental implementation can have more forethought, be more insidious, and have stronger foundations than the spur of the moment action. These gradual or justifiable changes can be easily implemented as reactionary or precautionary measures. However, they often all have the same disastrous consequences as the spur of the moment actions.
Both “good” and “bad” things can motivate the general public. Both can convince people of the need for action today for the preservation of tomorrow. They also can both be born out of some form or degree of mob mentality. Even those movements that are inspired out of caring for our future are not immune from the power of the mob mentality and can lead in many directions of darkness or light. Whether or not a movement will lead into darkness or light is not always obvious at first glance. The mob mentality can take on many forms and be present in a variety of strengths or areas. The power of the mob can be enticing for some. It can persuade people to profess things or act in ways that participants may not entirely agree with. Like a tornado, it can make people flow in one general direction, its force only visible because of that which it carries—just as with a tornado it is difficult to see the wind, but we do see the drops of water and debris which it carries. It is the gradual acceptance and normalization of the extremes by the more moderate of us that is most dangerous. The gradual concessions to our core nature or the gradual indoctrination of beliefs or practices into the general public, which without the previous steps of indoctrination would be considered alarming, must be viewed with extreme scrutiny. We must be very cautious of steps that may seem to be necessary and appropriate at the time. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent out of convenience, fear, or self-promotion by a few, leading to their adoption by the many. We must also be cautious of those who may utilize these opportunities more for their own benefit rather than the benefit or safety of all. The excuses of the temporary can often be used for the justifications of the permanent.
Favoritism—In the Swing of the Pendulum, the Middle is Lost
What is your personal definition of fascism? What is your personal definition of socialism? What is your personal definition of capitalism? What is your personal definition of communism? What is your personal definition of conservatism? What is your personal definition of liberalism? What is your personal definition of imperialism? What is your personal definition of totalitarianism? We all can research the true and accurate definitions of these terms; however, it is what they personally mean to each of us that is important. Just as some may attempt to use them for labels, many of these terms are used by extremists of all sides to define others, but not themselves.
Which way will it swing? Powers of influence, favoritism, various spectrums, perspectives, and the consensus of majorities can fluctuate and swing like a pendulum. It is in this swinging that power and influence is most easily found or created. Some who would promote the extremist views would force us to choose between existing understandings. Some would have us choose between:
1. A form of extreme socialism or communism that subjugates the individual (subjugation to the few in an illusion of serving the masses or the greater good), with the possibility of being forced to support those who can support themselves at a loss to our own. These extreme forms ultimately only result in the illusion of equality and freedom. They potentially limit or erode the human potential to the point where the individual is discouraged from fully creating and achieving, at a cost to ourselves and, more importantly, the whole.
2. One of the many various forms of fascism, which seeks some form of suppression, exclusion, and subjugation as well as the destruction of equality, dismantling of individuality, and elimination of freedoms.
3. A form of extreme capitalism that takes advantage to the point of suppression or inflicting detrimental long-term loss and damage. A form of crony capitalism. A form of what someone from my past once referenced as “corpocracy.” Or, a form of capitalism that poses unnecessary risks to survival. Extreme forms that exchange short-term gain for long-term stability, or in which life has the potential of being devalued to a number.
4. An extreme or distorted form of nationalism or isolationism, where the nonconformist or even every individual is suppressed, subjugated to the few in power, or eliminated altogether.
All of these extremes and others, each in their own way, have the possibility of limiting the human potential, freedom, and spirit, and will eventually devalue something in life or even life itself. Following the swing of the populist in any circumstance can be much like the impulsive swinging of a double-edged blade—moderation and common sense can become lost by the wayside. Throughout history, those who have chosen the path of closing themselves off to the common sense of moderation can become extreme, under the absolute control of the few or of the masses, and generally become ill-equipped to deal with the changing world.
Middle versus the Extreme
In the extremist, an all-or-nothing attitude can develop. Radicalization widens the divides between people, and that which is held in common becomes lost. Many extremists even try to widen the gaps within the divide of the population in hopes of recruiting more constituents to their side. This is also often common between political parties or ideologies, various sides push their agendas and try to undo the advancements or accomplishments of the previous group, and vice versa. It is something people have grown to despise, tolerate, and sometimes succumb to at the same time. People can easily surrender to the rhetoric of fault finding and undertake to dismantle rather than putting positive energy into creating. In the past, this has had disastrous consequences. Thus far, we have been able to alter course and mitigate some of the damage when a population swings too far in any direction, although sometimes it has taken the course of decades or longer to recover from. The problem is, with our current interconnectedness and communicational abilities, impulsiveness or extremism is not something we can afford to take a chance with. When it comes to isolationism, nationalism, socialism, fascism, communism, capitalism, global collaboration, or globalization we cannot afford the luxury of overreaction, nastiness, shortsightedness, or immaturity.
Who is Fighting?
Who or what do we perceive to be in control?
Do those on various sides claim it is for the best of all, but “do not mind” if they themselves are rewarded?
Perhaps, it can seem like a battle between multiple or sometimes seemingly countless forces. I believe one of the forces that is battling are those who want to guide society in the direction they think is best. Other forces that seem to be battling are those who seek what they believe to be stability, those who have a fear for survival (both self-centered and altruistic), and those who have the urge for the community to grow together. Unfortunately, though, it sometimes appears to me to be more of a battle between those who want to dominate, erase others altogether, advance themselves, and those who wish to maintain the advantage of growth or the status quo for themselves. Some elements are not exclusively indicative of any one side. Meaning, some forces may be comprised of two or more of these elements. It is a battle between those who feed on humanity to satisfy their own greed and those who want humanity to become whole and succeed all together. It is a battle between those who want to help people and those who want to solidify power for themselves and their cohorts. Some may even liken it to a battle between “good and evil.” As in all battles between good and evil, we can be deceived or manipulated. Worse yet, sometimes similar-looking but very different elements can be found on all sides, disguised by shades of gray. We must be careful and not be deceived!
Isolationism for Cultural Preservation
Ironically, it is not only global collaboration or globalization that we should concern ourselves with. Prestige or concern for a national interest, cultural interest, or religious doctrine can be honorable and only reasonable; however, it can also be easily used as a smokescreen for darker purposes. We must concern ourselves also with those who promote themselves or their agendas based on combating globalization.
There are those who are now pursuing and promoting extreme or distorted isolationism, nationalism, religious doctrines, economic isolation, or dominance, as well as those who may even be forming global alliances under the guise of nationalism, isolationism, self-preservation, or thwarting globalization. Make no mistake: they are now globalizing between and within themselves. The combined global effort, or support of others like themselves, to establish enclaves is a form of globalization in itself. Do not be blind to the fact that many who would tout nationalism or isolationism are now globalizing among themselves. Many who promote distorted or extreme versions of any of these as a means to protect a way of life or combat globalization, are often looking in the process for how they or their allies can benefit personally more than the community in general. Often, they ultimately want to dictate how individuals should lead their lives. They alone decide who should be in charge and what decisions are to be made for all. Some may even try to decide who belongs and who does not. They are the ones to decide where and when. In the end, their main concern can often be themselves only.
Extreme or distorted forms of isolationism, nationalism, and religious doctrines can often be seen as necessary for the protection of beliefs, culture, or ways of life. Such distortion can emerge under the pretext of unification to combat “the enemy.” It can come under the deception of a promise for betterment. It may be presented under the pretext of the restoration or preservation of values, ways of life, devotion, nationalism, preserving roots, or any number of reasons. Yes, some forms of isolationism, nationalism, and religious doctrines can be instrumental or essential for the stability of a society. Isolationism and nationalism can help us rediscover our roots and restore, unify, and create community in the short term. And religious doctrines are necessary for community continuity, purpose in life, values, et cetera. However, extremist or perverted versions leave us weak or stagnant compared to the outside world. Perverted versions of these have had the result of distorting those very same roots we wish to protect.
Extreme isolationism, nationalism, and religious doctrines can be forced upon a civilization. However, anything that is forced upon a civilization will eventually grow to be despised, rejected, or resented by the population of that civilization. And often, but not always, those who wish to promote the extreme do so not for preservation or protection, but for subjugation and control. In my opinion, if they were really concerned with the preservation or growth of their culture, they would work toward that through positive inclusive actions that inform or encourage outsiders to observe, protect, or even participate in their culture. Perhaps by showing them the positive values and reasons why the culture needs to be preserved or even grow.
Extreme isolationism or distorted religious doctrines for the preservation of a culture from outside influences can often draw the attention of those rival influences. Such measures can not only draw attention from the outside to the isolated, but also draw attention within the isolated to the outside. Sometimes the practice of intentional or unintentional extremism will enable a fictitious enemy to become reality. Those who draw attention to something that they claim is unavoidable, whether that is the reality or not, will ultimately on some scale promote the inevitability of that something happening. Once something is mentioned and acknowledged we will only draw attention to it. However slightly, we have verified that there is a risk of probability.
Extreme isolationism or nationalism or distorted religious doctrines can sometimes lead to the individual rejecting the culture or belief system, which is often a loss to that community. Most humans have the natural tendency to reject that which they feel can be suffocating. This feeling of the individual that the culture of the society is suffocating to them can lead to a threat to the society. The individuals can form into groups and groups can easily become movements. Once these movements happen, whether good or bad, successful or not, they will always leave their marks and ultimately change the course of the community, society, or culture. Thus it is not only those in defiance that these societies, communities, or cultures should concern themselves with. Obedient coalitions can also foster opposing attention and inspire rivals in all areas and to all degrees. Additionally, these societies, communities, and cultures must be aware not only of the discontentment within but also of discontentment from outside as well.
Isolationism can also be just as great, or even greater, of a threat than the radical or extremist. Isolationism can not only create weakness and make a society vulnerable to the outside, but also create the extremists on either or both sides within the society. Isolationism also provides a void that can give birth to and nurture the radical and extremist. Isolationism is not a force to combat head-on like the radicals. Isolationism imposes mental stagnation, which is contrary to human nature. Human nature cannot be avoided forever or completely. It may not seem like it at times, but humans cannot help themselves from thinking, at least on some level. Autonomy and differences cannot be suppressed indefinitely. Isolationism in the long-term is not a solution; whether it is voluntarily or involuntarily enacted, it cannot last forever. It is only a short-term solution that will ultimately leave us weaker. On the societal level, it breeds an atmosphere void of innovative ideas and concepts. New concepts and ideas are needed by the society or community in order for it to be able to adapt to the changes of time. Innovative ideas and concepts can emerge within the isolationist society on their own, but only very slowly—often much too slowly for proper adaptation. Some outside concepts are needed to build strength against other outside influences that are set to conquer or assimilate the culture to the point of unrecognizability. Isolationism often creates stagnation and eventually fear. Those who are stagnant cannot adapt. And, those who cannot adapt fade into history. In the past, those civilizations that dabbled in complete isolationism left themselves defenseless and vulnerable to weaknesses when under pressure from forces within or without. Isolationism breeds a weakness that is often followed by a cultural shift, decline, or even downfall. Many civilizations, nations, cultures, and religions that have isolated themselves in the past have had what they know of as “their way” end comparatively abruptly. They have had no choice but to abandon their isolationism for various reasons or else run the risk of simply passing into extinction or assimilation into another culture. Extreme isolationism or nationalism or distorted religious doctrines can not only leave a culture or society weaker in the long-run but also cause the individual to wither. These ways erode the human spirit in some and can make others lash out for autonomy. These practices can also create individuals who, after being suppressed for an extended amount of time, may not be fully equipped to handle autonomy when it does happen. Individuals may have to relearn all the responsibilities of autonomy. Occasionally, this learning process can be hard and treacherous. We must be diligent in preserving our autonomy. For the preservation of our own autonomy and to prevent the seeming validity of the extreme isolationist or extremist (in general), we must be diligent in protecting others’ autonomy, for our own is often next. We must combat loss of autonomy before it reaches our doorstep. We must examine our own doorstep.
Yes, we must not forget the importance of preserving those parts of a culture, heritage, and/or way of life that have been beneficial. Often, our culture is what has helped us be strong, survive, and grow. It is important to hold those traits it dearly in our hearts. However, isolationism in our modern technological world is unrealistic and will only delay the impact of outside influences. When a society as a whole has the desire for change, prohibiting this change will only force change underground. When change takes place underground, that change can often be unpredictable and even more undesirable.
Globalization and Global Collaboration—There is No Going Back
Globalization, or global collaboration, is something that gives me great anxiety, apprehension, and concern, considering our current state in the world, our current development as a global community when it comes to respecting humanity, and certain concerning human predilections. Some globalization and global collaboration efforts that are currently being developed have potentially more troubling consequences and possible disastrous results than benefits. Global collaboration by individual tyrants or other global partnerships/coalitions are utilizing the abilities and easy outlets of small societies to dominate masses within currently existing governmental structures. These global alliances—all part of various forms of oppressive socialistic, sociological, nationalistic, fascistic, dictatorial, or other dominating and repressive movements—are often upheld by the pretense of upholding order or security, or otherwise benefitting society. These global networks seem to be maturing faster than those honest, mutually beneficial, rational, and natural networks, or even those that think beyond the immediate future.
Globalization must be handled as one might handle a loaded gun. Simply getting rid of this gun does not remove the possibility that someone else may have another gun. Once traveling on the path to globalization, it cannot be entirely forgotten or reversed. Globalization could also be likened to a knife: it is a tool that can be used to create, maintain, or destroy. Globalization, or global collaboration, can be essential for advancement and sometimes survival; however, it can also become nightmarish in the wrong hands. In some respects, it is a loss of innocence. Global collaboration can be slowed, diverted, delayed, taken over by different methods and ideologies, or it can be changed altogether in countless ways. Any of these alterations can change its dynamic for the better or for the worse. However, completely preventing it from ever happening would require a “start over.” A start over would require that our complete knowledge base be erased to the point of eliminating the fundamental knowledge that has led to our discoveries and attainments. Our fundamental knowledge base has thousands of years of documented discoveries. These distant discoveries have led to other discoveries and eventually created our modern world. Thus, a complete erasure may take generations to find that knowledge, which is hidden in our minds and even within our various ways of life. Perhaps it may even require an alteration of human behavior and the elimination of the very human desire to explore, explain, create, and seek out. Knowledge leads to discoveries and discoveries lead to other knowledge and then eventually other discoveries, and the cycle is created. So, in this respect, even a start over is not a complete erasure but simply a reset, a delay to a different but potentially comparable state. Part of human, and thus societal, nature is to explore, create, and establish networks. Those discoveries are bound to be found again. Then eventually, possibly over what would seem to be countless periods, we would eventually be back at a similar situation as now, again resulting in another form of globalization. Faced with another threat of global collaboration but in a separate set of circumstances, we may not have the opportunities that we have now. Who is to say that the next time we face globalization or global collaboration there would not be circumstances with even greater chances of disastrous outcomes for our species? After our start over, who is to say what numerous possibilities for the next world there would be? Who is to say if they would be better or worse? We could have the possibility that our species face something even graver than what we’re facing now. There could be an even smaller possibility of our species surviving. Even if we had what some could call a “minor setback,” the recovery time could be astronomical and possibly alter our very species catastrophically.
Globalization is Happening Now
I sometimes wonder if there are globalizing efforts now underway, whether admitted or not, intentional or not, by those of all sides—both those who claim to be for and those who claim to be against globalization. Sometimes I wonder if there are currently various loosely constructed efforts being developed and implemented globally. Some of the most successful globalization efforts of today consist of loosely connected or semiorganized consortiums, whether they claim to be for or against globalization. Then, there are the rest of us 7.5+ billion people. Sometimes we are willing participants in globalization and global collaboration and sometimes not. Many people may appear to be in opposition to one another. However, even those who appear to be in opposition to one another are sometimes similar in some ways. In many ways and on many sides, these diverse worldwide movements, collaborations, or collectives set things in motion.
Globalization can happen through the support of loosely connected nationalistic, socialistic, isolationistic, fascistic, capitalistic, communistic, or other movements or collaborations. These partnerships of efforts can range, under the guises of ordinary partnerships, mutually supportive ones, or protective, financial, economic, national, social, environmental, theological, racial, ideological, or philosophical partnerships. They can appear to be in favor of or against any issue. However, they can be façades for the xenophobic, isolationist, fascist, fanatical, et cetera. Yes, we have had similar partnerships around for millennia, such as movements of faith inspired by greed not enlightenment, trading partnerships inspired by the interests of domination not economic prosperity for all, or various others that have not been solely motivated by the improvement of society, spirituality, or other similar uplifting reasons.
However, we must be careful in our emerging world, since the diverse, fringe, extreme, dangerous, and fanatical people have found the ability to spread their ideas and grow in numbers more quickly than in the past. Often, those who have found the ability to spread and grow quickly are those who carry the name of a group but have splintered off, co-opting the name only to form another group, or been corrupted. We are no longer in a world where we are isolated in our actions. All have the potential to become internationally influential very quickly. Some multinational groups are maturing, while others are still in their infancy. All of these can have worldwide influence and be of various consortiums, partnerships, arrangements, agreements, or movements. All of these diverse groups have numerous different approaches, motivations, and interests. They sometimes present themselves as legitimate voices of their people, but many have been corrupted and often only represent themselves. Many of these diverse groups often have the same goal in mind, the goal of only their own self-interest or that of their groups, rather than the best interest of all. They all often have their own private agendas, expanding their own globalization efforts, often without the necessary accountability or even concern from outside the group. Some might be under some sort of control—however, it is often only by their own group or their competitors who have the same or similar goals. Ultimately, they remain only answerable to themselves or their rivals. The efforts and agendas of these various alliances, in their bids for global dominance, are concerning and require being watched and monitored very closely. We cannot afford to dismiss them as not being able to influence the world significantly. Some may be encouraged or tolerated, while others, despite all efforts from the opposition, may be too strong to be discouraged or prevented from operating. The groups or individuals, both those not known publicly and the well-known ones, that have global influence and operate across borders with their actions behind the scenes are the most cunning. Sometimes they have direct control, other times they may have indirect control (in the conventional sense) of governments; but they can at times control the paths, abilities, operations, and choices that governments have. Many of these different global movements, organizations, networks, and/or alliances are being formed inside as well as outside current governmental boundaries and interests. In many respects, they often have more influence on governments than governments have on them. I suspect there are no true independently functioning governments, in the traditional definition, anymore. Most countries and the “major players of the world” do not necessarily completely control themselves. They are often directly or indirectly manipulated, corrupted, or at the very least influenced by forces within and without themselves that do not necessarily have definable geographical borders.
At our current state of development as a society, economic influence is still an integral part and is sometimes necessary for the stimulation of a society. However, this necessity of economics has been corrupted and resulted in the control of government shifting away from the will of the population in general. Yes, economics has always influenced government; however, we have never before had such globally based economics. Additionally, many final global economic decisions are made by a select few, in comparison to the many whom they affect. This is why maintaining local autonomy, authority, and self-regulation is so important. The autonomy based in self-regulation is an essential element in remaining independent. However, we must be wary of the globally organized exploiting the inconsistent or weak local regulation. Globalization can also occur through the process of dismantlement of local regulation.
Our attention can often be diverted from those with whom we should concern ourselves. Beyond those of governments, there are other efforts that I fear do not accurately portray the best interests or the wills of all people. There are some people with only their own personal greed or desire for power as a motivating factor; while there are also others who genuinely want to help. Some obviously legitimate, some obviously criminal, some in between—for some it depends on whom we ask, and others use legitimacy or illegitimacy only as a cover. Many of these world powers and coalitions with economic influence or power are waging war not just among themselves, fighting those of their own kind for control, but also on others and the rest of us. They wage their types of war in various and complex ways to keep their current control, increase their control, and diversify their types of control—control that should not be held by anyone. The world is unbalanced, as control is in their favor. But as they fight, in the long-term scheme of things, they are only fighting over an illusion of world domination, as domination is not only eventually fading, but also intangible. There are many examples of what makes world domination an illusion, but one is that monarchies, empires, regimes, or countless other powers can have control of populations, but they will eventually be replaced by others. Their control will not last forever. When there is the possibility, even if slight, that their control will not last forever, they have not won definitively. And, even when it is generally accepted that they are in control, their control can be a façade. A façade in the sense that they do not have complete control over all minds and spirits. Yes, control may be overwhelming, but as long as some part of someone resists or ignores it, they have not entirely won. Their control is intangible in the sense that they have control only because resistance is not yet sufficient.
The world is increasingly becoming a world where those who are in control are controlling us by our own demise. They can currently organize the planet simply because we give them the power to do so by our own complacency and inaction. They maintain control of us by tapping into our own fears, self-promises, and/or aspirations. Whether it is a worldwide consortium, individual(s), loosely organized group(s), cooperation between factions, or something not listed here, they can give us an enemy in order to divert our attention from their true actions, motivations, or goals. They manipulate us to fight among ourselves over ideologies, resources, the illusions of survivability, and an advancement of that survivability which is, in the end, more for their own benefit. They can also use wars, conflicts, hatreds, oppressions, and fears that are centuries old for their own advancement simply maintained because we were born and raised to be preconditioned into them. Those in control pull our strings and we dance like puppets, and all along they tempt us with false rewards or praise. Political, financial/economic, religious, cultural, and various other instruments are but a few of the means used to encourage us to fight among ourselves. We fight over the scraps left by those who manipulate the foundations of society for their own greed, advancement, or other gain—all at the expense of ourselves.
The point is this: global networks, organizations, and conglomerates already exist on many sides. Thus, the foundations of globalization have already been laid. The final outcomes of who, what, when, where, why, and how are still in their infancy. With our current transportation, communications, technology, interdependence, abilities, and overall world networks for the exchange of physical and nonphysical, world globalization in some ways and on some level is unavoidable, and already done. With the globalization efforts already underway, we must not forget the adages “sink or swim” and “do it or someone else will.” As long as we fight among ourselves for what little scraps are left available to us, instead of unifying and fighting for what we deserve, we will always be taken advantage of.
You do not have to believe anything I say. However, there are those now globalizing our planet who may not have all of our best interests in mind. At the very least, we need to be aware of those who have global influence and/or world power and who are not accountable to the general population of their nation or culture or even any other general population for that matter. They often do not recognize or are able to circumvent national borders and cultural boundaries. The current governmental or cultural systems are unable to curtail their efforts of furthering their personal agenda or that of their groups more than that of the world community at large, and often even at a loss to the world community. In some instances, they are encouraged or aided by the current governmental or cultural systems wherein they live or operate. Often, current national and cultural interests are sacrificed for the personal gain or short-term benefit of someone else. Unfortunately, this will only create weakness in the long run. The question is, will we finally recognize this and have the courage to take action before the damage is irreversible?
Our Duty and Failure to Government
Governments that are responsible and follow the will of their people are strong, yet they can still be very vulnerable to failure. The reasons for governmental weakness or failure can be vast, diverse, very complicated, and definitely involve much more than can be discussed here. That said, a government will set itself up for failure, collapse, or replacement when it loses the faith, trust, or approval of its citizenry. A system is fated for replacement when it creates an extremely high percentage of disenfranchised people, becomes too corrupt or ineffective, no longer has the infrastructure to support itself, or can no longer supply the structure or stability that its citizens require from it. A few danger signs of a government being viewed as obsolete, ineffective, or weak—and thus doomed for change, death, or complete replacement—can be unusually high voter turnout, unusually low voter turnout, or a widespread belief that corruption or oppression exists. When there is unusually high voter turnout, it is best that those in power listen. When voter turnout decreases, that could indicate that the government or representation is viewed as obsolete or has lost the faith of its citizenry. When there is a significantly widespread practice of oppression, loss of confidence in that government, or a common belief that corruption or oppression exists there, it is not only the time for us to take a stand, but it is our responsibility to take action. It is our personal responsibility to ensure proper government prevails. When people lose faith in a government because of ineffectiveness, oppression, or corruption, they may naturally look elsewhere. They may try to find a different government, possibly in a different form. We must be careful not to replace one with another that is just as ineffective, oppressive, or corrupt. Ineffectiveness, oppression, or thievery will eventually lead to the demise of any government. Not only do these lead to the demise of a government, but they possibly leave distain tinting the view of that form of government in the minds of the citizenry. The society can incorrectly associate and confuse the flaws of that leadership with that form of government. It is not necessarily the form of government that is flawed, but the leadership that is within that form. People do not always realize this. However, these flaws can still leave a stain in hearts and minds for that form of government, even if that form of government is valid.
Many societies have historically experienced cycles of experimentation with forms of government. Our predilection toward cycles can be costly and dangerous. We must think beyond the concepts of right or left, liberal or conservative—we must break this cycle of thinking. In my opinion, when you have the extreme flip-flops between right or left, liberal or conservative, fascist, socialist, communist, dictatorial, or authoritative, that is when you tend to have extreme ongoing issues with the country, nation, and society. With our tendency to flirt with extremes and so easily accept them as solutions, do we sometimes become frightened into accepting things we see as inevitabilities, but which in reality do not have to be inevitable? Do we continually ask ourselves trivial questions, hoping to avoid what we see as inevitable events or situations? In asking ourselves the less important questions, do we distract ourselves from the obvious or more important questions that we should be contemplating or asking? Do we distract ourselves with acceptance of a situation or ask ourselves the inconsequential in order to avoid thinking about inevitable situations or events that we know will be unpleasant for us? Perhaps one of these questions that we should be truly asking ourselves is, has it really come down to a choice between the establishment that has lost touch with and the respect of the populace and those who seek power and control for themselves?
Democracy, or self-determination, is a very vital element of society, but yet it can be very fragile. We must be cautious, not allowing it to slip between our fingers, for once lost it is very difficult to regain. Democracy may possibly take many years or generations to recuperate, and it may take countless sacrifices. It is our duty to ensure that the correct form of government prevails. Some do not realize that rejection of a form of government does not guarantee the end of ineffectiveness or corruption, just the end of that form of government.
We cannot continually deny necessities or rewards or break promises to a society if it deserves them. If we continually promise a society something and do not deliver or at least try to deliver, then we will be in the wrong and may eventually lose their trust or support. False promises and failures are lies in the eyes of a society. Continuously demonstrating our promises to be false will eventually make us fail. For, at minimum, the survival of government, and more ideally for improvement of society, we must ensure that they are both adaptive and not susceptible to the changing times. We must make sure that governments provide sociological and physical security while at the same time protecting freedoms, promoting abilities, and providing opportunities to improve oneself as well as the community.
There are many ways to increase your control over populations; however, we cannot buy or threaten someone into true patriotism, admiration, or respect for a governing body. Without true respect from its people, a government is doomed to eventual death or replacement. And as long as there is a need for government, we must be very aware of any discontent among its peoples. Discontentment among the people will lead to distress or frustration and will eventually cause political unrest, thus increasing the possibility for the fall of that government or even the entire society. If there are laws, written or unwritten, that give preferential treatment to some or limit others, then there may be discontentment among the people. We must also make sure the laws of the government, even if there is no preferential treatment given, do not cause general discontentment among its people. There is a point when a citizenry no longer believes that they determine the law; at that point they may begin to reject the law or even the current government or society. The people must control the limits of law, rather than the law control the people. The people must retain the control of the destiny of the laws, instead of the laws controlling the destiny of the people. All of us should question authority to keep it from getting too powerful for our society to control. When we lose control over our government, then we lose our own authority. Legality is nothing more than general consensus. And general consensus can be for the moral best interest or worst interest, for the positive or the negative outcome of us all.
It saddens me, the world that we live in. And I am particularly saddened by some of our choices of our leaders. I am even sometimes saddened by our choices of those who are just figureheads. The world sometimes seems as if it drips with corruption. Sometimes, it appears that there are those in the world who seriously have the potential to lead us into a sort of a “holy war” or a war between dynasties. This is one of the reasons that we must not confuse a government with its nation. We must also remember that nations and governments can exist independently of each other while at the same time with each other. Nations can exist across governmental borders and governments can have influence across boundaries of different nations. But in any case, what concerns me are those with influence who truly do not represent the will of the people.
Followers Looking to be Led
In times of nervousness in societies, increased rhetoric and the actions that follow, and action of governmental transitions, there is an immediate reaction by society, shown in the swinging of deviations in many and various popular areas such as beliefs, culture, politics, et cetera. But it is government that this paragraph chiefly focuses on. In the time that we live in, many have also lost hope and faith in many areas throughout society (including but not exclusively the government). Have we become a world where uncertainty is more of a norm? In times like these, it has never been so easy for those who lead to spur others to follow a movement or to create one. There has never been such a large population base or so many numerous and accessible opportunities available for the individual to find willing followers. And never before has the common individual been able to search and communicate with others to spur actions. We have also become a world where an action in one part of the world is not so isolated that it cannot affect actions in another part of the world.
Are we close to a worldwide revolution? Is loyalty to the constitution of your socially recognized nation or politically recognized government supporting a revolution in your nation or country? If so, what type of revolution? Is patriotism to your nation or government a denunciation or rejection of its current leadership? The question is, when does patience or apprehension give way to action? How dangerous or unpredictable could these actions turn? Or is this what is needed for the advancement, or maybe even just the survival of the species? Ironically the major obstacle and major opportunity of any of these scenarios tends to be apathy and hopelessness. But we must remember that revolution is like a wildfire. Wildfires can be so easy to start, on purpose or by accident, and once it begins, it can be difficult or impossible to control.
Our Duty to Replacement of Leadership
Do we purge the leaderships of our governments because we are becoming more aware, or is it a matter of becoming less tolerant of their corruption or flaws? I can appreciate the unique positions of many groups and leaderships in the governments of the world, but many of their motivations and methods have unfortunately become too corrupt. However, we must also ask ourselves, what are they being replaced with? We must be careful; sometimes in our despair or frustration we grasp for the beautiful, but unwittingly grasp the nightmare.
Our Duty to Leadership—Creation of Leadership
Many are born with a natural instinct, even if it is only slight or occasional, to follow. And often, a society or group will naturally look for leadership—unfortunately, even if it is not in their best interest. If we have not yet outgrown the need for leadership as a species or society, then it is our duty to help the world flourish by creating, protecting, and assisting quality leadership. We deserve leaders interested in protecting and benefiting the world, society, and consciousness of us all. We must create an environment which produces leaders who are interested in the protection and advancement of the entire human race, not just of themselves or the select few.
The creation of leaders can happen in countless ways. Leadership can happen by chance, by need or circumstances, as a last resort, or because of an epiphany of the group or movement. Sometimes, the group or movement finds the leader. Other times, the leader finds or creates the movement. Sometimes there are those individuals with that “spark” by chance or by birth. There are also those few people in the right place, at the right time, and with those needed life experiences, talents, desires, skills, or appearances. However, leaders and other authority are also made. Truly “just” or “righteous” leaders never seek out their responsibilities; the responsibilities seek them out. Often, they can be just individuals who are fed up with what they believe to be injustices or failures. Whether leaders work toward “evil” or “good” can often, but not always, depend on how they grew up, the circumstances around them, or the way life has treated them, and how they have accepted and dealt with that. Unfortunately, on those rare occasions when we have had monumental leadership, we did not realize it until afterwards. The only time we know if a leader is ultimately achieving “good” or “bad” for a society is when it is too late. It is our responsibility to create an environment where there is a better chance of producing leaders who are for the “good.” We need those people who improve, preserve, or protect society, but unfortunately on that same branch are also those who might ultimately do us all in.
Types of Leadership
Throughout history, some leaders have used the threat of a common enemy or fear to unite, motivate, or control their people. What if those leaders knew all along that the unifying motivator they look for and can use could be found within us? Successful leaderships, for the “good” or the “bad,” know the nuances of tapping into the people; I just wish the ones that lead for the good were more successful than they are. Leadership derived from fears or promises can survive for a while, but leadership that is capable of surviving and thriving into the future needs the respect and admiration of its people. True admiration or patriotism cannot be bought through fear or bribery. People may be coaxed into outwardly aiding or remaining silenced because of fear being imposed on them, but secretly and privately they can tend to ignore, undermine, or resist those who or that which brings them fear. And as for bribery, the human nature of wanting increasingly more will prevail, and once a leadership is unable to supply those bribes, the support of the people will be lost. A leadership needs to do many things to earn respect or admiration from their people. One of these things is to protect and take care of their citizenry where the society cannot. Protecting or providing for others can be motivated by “good” or “bad” reasons. We must also remember that no matter how an action appears, it can end for the good or for the bad, in truth or deception. If we are to survive into the next millennium, we must reject those who are only interested in self-gratification and power. We need those who seek facts even if those facts are contradictory to their own personal beliefs. Those who protect, provide prosperity, and carry out the best interests for all are required. We require such leaders. We need leaders who seek knowledge and experience. We need leaders who have the ability to look at a situation with many different perspectives. And also, we require leaders who implement functional policies even if contrary to their own interests, beliefs, or agendas. We need those who are only interested in serving the greater good, even if it comes at a personal cost to themselves. We need leaders who have a proven record of thinking of themselves last when balancing their good against that of the community. We require those who follow the positive inner light and well-being of the human species, and not self-interests. We need successful leaders who make significant differences. Leaders for the good, and unfortunately the ones for the bad as well, are the ones who can not only think in the abstract but also see, create, and move toward their vision. We need those who can spur practical movement and organization toward that vision or goal for the betterment of the human species. They are the ones who help prepare us for the next challenges. We need leaders who are willing to acknowledge and solve problems even if the solution contradicts their personal beliefs, interests, or desires. If we are going to have leaders, should not they be the people who understand the world around us, our species, and the societies wherein we live? Why cannot we follow or at least listen to the most incorruptible? Why cannot we listen to the scientific for knowledge, the philosophical for temperament and insight, the truthfully spiritual for morality and heart, the practical for practicality, the dreamers for inspiration and new visions, the ingenious for ingenuity, the experts for their various areas of expertise, and those generalists who can see how all the pieces of the puzzle come together so we do not suffer from myopia or tunnel vision? No one is perfect, but we need and deserve those who can devote themselves to understanding the world around us and something other than themselves. We also need people who can see beyond the short-term benefits and look more at the long-term outcome, beyond their personal life expectancy. What we do in the here and now is important and sets the stage for all future events. Do we not deserve leaders who are more concerned about the long-term rather than the time between now and the end of their administrations?
Our Duty to Follow the Majority and Requirement to Defy it When Necessary
If the majority says it is “no,” then it is “no.” The majority must have the right to dictate the policies for the whole. However, this does not give the majority the right to suppress or silence the minority. The will of the majority must be upheld, even more so when we strongly disagree. Whether we agree with their current policies or not, it is our sworn duty, responsibility, and privilege to defend, encourage, and preserve those governments that represent the true will of the majority, and reflect the will of their population while preserving the right of the individual to disagree. As far as the government of the people is concerned, democracy must be sustained. The rule of the majority must be followed even if we sometimes believe that it may not be beneficial overall to do so. All may have to follow the laws of the majority, but the minority must still be respected. Following the rules of the majority does not mean the minority is to be deprived or silenced. The will of the majority must be followed; however, the minority must also have the right to challenge the majority, ability to verify that it is a true majority, and honest opportunity to change the true majority. Sometimes, it is time to be a silent majority no more. The more the majority suppresses the minority the more the minority will grow. More apprehension creates more violence. We must always listen to the silent majority, or the collapse of a government is unavoidable. A government will set itself up for failure when the citizenry no longer believes in the representatives or the process of that government. Its citizenry in general will consider that government a threat when they feel the government blatantly ignores and/or no longer represents the true majority will of the people.
There can be much dispute about what is beneficial overall. Sometimes the majority may be wrong, but we must have true democracy in order to find the truth of leadership and policies within ourselves. Unfortunately, sometimes the majority must fail the community for us all to learn. Following the will of the majority does not negate our responsibility to the society. If we do not voice our opinions or concerns, then we are not standing up for our personal freedoms, or worse, we are letting apathy win. If we think the majority is wrong, then it is our duty to explain to them why they are wrong, so the majority does not fail the community.
Convenience or Conformability
We have failed democracy and ourselves by our complacency in accepting situations that are portrayed to us as predetermined. We have failed democracy and ourselves in accepting the authority of our own voices being denied. Why can some become so afraid of being the first to speak up, so afraid of being ridiculed or viewed as weak? It takes courage to be the first to express what others may be thinking. It is our duty to speak not only for the benefit of a situation, but for the safety of all. We must ensure that a situation does not fester and explode. Yes, sometimes the road will be difficult, but at least there may be a road where there would be none if we had remained silent. Often, a society can be frightened until it is lulled into acceptance or into an illusion of comfort. A society is sometimes willing to live in a situation knowing it is not improving and possibly becoming worse. But they delude themselves with their various reasons for acceptance. Like the parable of the experiment of a frog in boiling water. It is said, put a frog in a pan of boiling water and the frog will immediately try to jump out. But put a frog in a pan of room temperature water, then very slowly bring the water to a boil, and it is said the frog may stay in it until it becomes boiled alive. Are we that frog, the pan our world, and the increasing temperature of water our current situations? Say to the people in charge, if you wish, “You are not my elected leaders.” Refuse them their self-proclaimed place of power or position, no matter where, even if they are a powerful organization or person or office. Apathy needs nothing to be done to succeed.
Government—Today versus Tomorrow
The need for some sort of structure and stability within a society will give rise to a need for some form of government, control, rules, enforcement, implementing of consequences for actions, or regulatory body. As there is a need to have some sort of supervisory entity at our present sociological development, there is a need for some sort of presence to ensure societal boundaries, safety, security, common sense, and mutual respect are observed and protected. It must allow and be able to protect and promote individuality, self-government, community cohesion, and growth, and be in the correct form and temperament. We cannot allow one person or one group, or more importantly the many who are now moving forward with world power, to rule or govern alone. We need diversity of control. No single individual, group of individuals, or authority should be in complete charge and rule alone. No individual(s) or group(s) have the sole right to decide the fate of a society, a world, or our future.
Perhaps someday our society, structures, and human behavior may evolve beyond the need for formal government or a third-party influence for stability or security. Once society or human behavior is able to balance out the negative influences from outside or within itself, there may be no need for formal government or control. Someday, perhaps in the distant future, we will outgrow the need for an official government and oversight. However, that is still very, very far in the distant future of the maturity of our species. We as a species have a lot of maturing yet before there is no need for an influence outside the individual self. Currently, we need to have laws, limits, some form of government, and structure on some level. In this present day and at our current sociological mindsets and development, I believe we are not socially evolved enough not to have some form of formal leadership. If we are to endure and survive into the future and the world of tomorrow, then perhaps none of our current concepts of government, as people now perceive, define, or use them, may be seen as solely practical or conducive to the future and the world of tomorrow. Perhaps our current concepts of government will have to become outdated in order for us to survive into the future. Yes, there may be remnants in the future, but government in general as our understanding of it is today may become outdated and be seen as plagued with too many issues. Perhaps in the future it will be something with a new definition, which has yet to be adopted. Perhaps it will be something or a concept that has not even been explored, envisioned, or even yet imagined.
The revolutions of tomorrow may be conventional and unconventional and both governmental and non-governmental. They may happen in what first appears to be unconnected and unrelated circumstances or events. There may be those who may attempt to delay these and other changes for their own reasons. But there are and will be inevitabilities acting both independently of and together with each other, all at the same time. In these times of nervousness, talk, and actions of societal changes, there are immediate or imminent reactions to these current changes in the world. Perhaps, it is time for a revolution not only of leadership, but one that is also sponsored by the collective realizations of us all. A revolution of being. We must not think of the contemporary version of “revolutions,” but of how they may have been defined as “revelations” millenniums ago.
Freedom—Limits and Boundaries
In hearing some, I wonder if perhaps there are those people with particular rhetoric who simply exist just for the purpose of helping with the digestion of what others may say. Sometimes the rhetoric of some can help us examine what we may say or do. Sometimes their extremisms make others appear tamer by comparison. The outrageous rhetoric of some can help us realize boundaries that we have forgotten. We should encourage, protect, and promote the ability of people to think and say what they choose as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another to do the same. The debate about what constitutes safety, freedoms, and the proper balance thereof is a very old one. However, it is in the middle that most of us find ourselves. In these times, I personally find it disconcerting that in many debates about freedoms, the extremes on both sides seem to be proposing in some way or degree a completely regulated world from birth to death, where individuality or disagreement is suppressed, where everyone is isolated, where we have eliminated self-sufficiency and ingenuity, and are sacrificing the future for the present. Whatever combinations the extremes may attempt to impose on the future, we cannot create a world where from morning to night we are commanded and isolated from reality. Neither can we have a world where there are no rules, essentially a world of complete free-for-all.
We must have a world where there are protections and encouragement of personal freedoms, but which also ensures that the responsibilities that come along with those freedoms are fulfilled. We must be aware of any laws that involve personal freedoms, security, or balance of power among groups. Also, we must be watchful of those groups that involve themselves in such issues. While they generally should be allowed to speak all they wish, we must still watch them closely. We cannot allow them to silence others, just as we cannot allow them to silence us. A democracy is not a democracy when there is favoritism. Democracy cannot be protected at the expense of civil liberties. Freedom and democracy are based upon civil liberties.
Freedom—Its Importance
Ideas and thoughts can not only be a precursor of violence or control, but also a precursor of non-violence and intelligence. Unjustifiable oppression, in any form, is unproductive to society and our species as a whole. Freedom of thought, freedom of ideas, freedom of ideals, and the ability to share these are key, essential parts to the survival and development of the human species. Free expression of ideas is essential for adaptation to the changing times. And the free fellowship of ideological beliefs is an essential element to the survival and growth of our species. Speaking what is on the mind is what makes things change. That is how the individual and society can grow as a species. Not being able to think independently can at the very least make us more susceptible to and accepting of ill-conceived answers or solutions. This can also cause us to keep perspectives and possibly valuable information to ourselves. Someone may have an important insight that others have overlooked. Imagine a world where everyone who knew a better solution, better answer, or at the very least had valuable information was taught not to express it. What kind of world would we have if no one was the first to tell another that they did not think that the earth was flat?
People need to have the right to be free and self-determining. In many people, eventually any type of severe or unjustified confinement may cause the breakdown of highly organized thought or previously constructed societal structures, cultural norms, et cetera. Unjustified confinement can also set the stage for the violation of social taboos. When this occurs, devaluation of human life and the decline of general respect for one another may begin to happen. For the mental well-being of people and their sense of survival, they must be able to make decisions for themselves. We must have the ability to say and do as we wish, when it does not have the high likelihood of causing disproportional stress or harm to themselves or others. I would also hope that many would agree that each should be able to do as they see fit, except when it results in some form of harm. Of course, the question of when does allowing too much freedom result in harm will always be debatable. The balance between freedom, protection, and what is harmful cannot always be completely agreed upon. I have asked myself: Where is the balance between allowing people freedom and preventing them from causing or receiving harm? There is an old saying: “The freedom to swing our arms ends at the tip of the nose of another.” However, the case could be made that we should not be swinging our arms near the nose of another. Another case could be made—why would one have their nose where another is swinging their arms? Sometimes one is completely at fault, sometimes it is the other at fault, sometimes both are equally culpable, sometimes it is a matter of percentage, sometimes other circumstances enter the equation, and other times it can be a combination of any of these. How much and what kind of fault has the potential to always remain debatable.
In all species, but particularly in the human species, freedom is needed, or its members will wither and die. People without freedom will die inside and eventually on the outside. If people are denied the freedom to make their own decisions, it can cause discontentment and stress. This discontentment and stress can often result in violence and displacement of anger, resulting in harm to ourselves or others. Sometimes if people cannot release tension by speaking out and following their own ideas or beliefs, then they tend to release that stress or displace anger in a violent or bad way. Not allowing the releasing/voicing of ideas and censoring what can be said is not only dangerous to the mental well-being of ourselves, but also to others and the whole of society as well. People must be free to think what they wish. Humans without freedom are like animals caught in a trap; they will sacrifice part of themselves to be free, or worse, to free themselves, they can sacrifice someone else or you!
Teaching of Freedom
In order for freedom to work, it must work for all. Freedom must be a “two-way street” in the sense that if we want to ensure freedom for ourselves, we all must ensure that others have it as well. Humankind has always sought to control the beliefs of others, yet we value freedom as one of our highest prizes. How can we ever hope to free ourselves while, at the same time, trying to control others? How can we expect ourselves, let alone others, to receive or achieve freedom when we are unable to give freedom to others? We say that people should speak their minds, but sometimes we show them distaste and do not respect them when they do. People are often told to speak their minds, but at the same time, discouraged. Often, we are taught that just because of the “position” of another they must know best. We are taught that it may be improper to disagree with someone simply because of who they may be (in terms of position or status). Being taught to keep our views to ourselves often causes stress and devalues our beliefs. In order to become more relaxed with giving and hearing ideas, we have to be more relaxed with ourselves. Although we say that everyone should speak their mind, we are often taught not to speak out. When children are taught that it is rude to voice their minds or opinions, they can reach adolescence or adulthood and still be convinced that it is dangerous to speak out against other people or ideas. The ability to speak out or speak up is sometimes necessary for our own safety and survival. To ease tension about speaking up, we need to create an atmosphere in which people can freely express their ideas without fear of reprisal, punishment, or ridicule for expressing them. People must be made comfortable about expressing their ideas or opinions, as this will ease tension and frustration within.
Freedom—Our Personal Obligation
In order to keep our personal freedoms and rights, we must unfortunately continually defend those rights and freedoms. Not standing up for our own puts them in jeopardy for all. We must let no one stand in the way of voicing our opinions or beliefs. If we believe that someone is doing wrong, then it is our obligation to demonstrate and explain why they are wrong or misinformed. However, I also believe it is not within our rights to violate other people by corrupting their views, oppressing their views, or forcibly persuading views upon them. Just as it is equally important that we not allow ourselves to be dictated to, we should not dictate to others. All must have the ability to choose, coupled with the responsibility and knowledge to form their views or make their own decisions. Their final choices must always ultimately remain theirs, just as our choices should be our own. Therefore, in the process of differing from others we must be cautious not to stand in the way of others voicing their opinions or beliefs. We must defend the freedoms, rights, and ability of others to voice their opinions, especially when they are contrary to our own. We must not limit the right of another to respectfully disagree with any view. The protection of freedoms for anyone, including ourselves, cannot be at the expense of the freedom of another who is respectfully expressing their opinion. In obtaining our goal of freedom for all, we cannot be blinded into sacrificing the freedoms of anybody. We cannot achieve the goals of freedom for all by sacrificing freedoms.
We must take care not to infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others in the process of exercising ours, just as they should not infringe upon our own. If we force our opinions on someone else, then we have lost touch with the meaning of personal freedoms and rights. If we try to discount or silence the ideas of others because we think they are not promoting democracy, then we ourselves are not promoting democracy. Even if we do not agree with those opposing viewpoints, it is even more important that we protect those differing opinions of another. Of course, we have the right, or even obligation, to respectfully dismantle or disprove their arguments if we disagree. In doing this, it is important that we police ourselves before others do it for us. When we deny a society its rights, we are unworthy of its support and the society will eventually and justifiably deny us. As long as a person is not a threat to the safety or rights of another to exist, they should be left alone to voice their opinions. We must also examine ourselves and others, not only by our own personal definition of intrusion but also by theirs, as well as considering if the situation were truly and honestly reversed. If there is no appearance of intrusion, by any party, then all parties should be left alone to voice their opinions. We must also not fall down the common slippery slope of believing a thing is fair if it happens to them, but not fair if it happens to us. Remember the fact that we can only make decisions and judgments for ourselves, and no one else. All of us will not always fully agree. And we may not always correctly, fully, and completely understand each other; however, we at the very minimum need to respect one another. We need just plain acceptance, even if we do not agree—we all have the right to exist. When we fail to acknowledge others’ right to exist, they may fail to acknowledge our right in return.
Protecting and Supporting Beliefs
We need to respect the privacy, rights, and beliefs of others in order to protect our own. The beliefs of others must be respected and upheld just as ours should be. It is about freedom and the respect of another human being. To do this, we must be respectful of the personal beliefs of others, even though they contradict our own. Of course, this respect should also be extended to those whom others contradict as well.
In evaluating a situation, we cannot accurately judge the actions that another takes against a third person based on things or ideas that we do not believe in, understand, or have not experienced. However, at the same time, we cannot allow others to cause harm. In the protection of our beliefs and practices, we must protect the rights of others to believe and practice as they wish, without fear of reprisal or ridicule, as long as they do not harm or infringe upon the rights or practices of another in the process. Yes, what constitutes protection, freedom, and the balance thereof between two or more people is often debatable. However, I hope we all can agree that we must treat others as humanely as possible, just as we ourselves would want to be humanely treated. I would hope we agree that no one should have complete authority or control over another fully self-aware human being. We must support those opposing beliefs that do not subjugate others. We must be, at the very least, tolerant. The protection of beliefs cannot be extended to the point of justifying subjugation; the subjugation of another cannot be tolerated. The act of capitulating to subjugation opens up all, including ourselves, to the possibility of subjugation by another. When we allow others or the beliefs of others to be subjugated, we can create a precedent that may pave the way for our own beliefs or ourselves to one day be vulnerable to subjugation. Beliefs of or involving subjugation are not beneficial and can be counterproductive in a modern world. When we become elitists or promote the “deletion” of others it is an inevitability that we, at the very least or most probably, have weakened ourselves to become deleted. An example of this harmful thinking: The belief that those with different paths of worship or enlightenment are subject to genocide or, at the other extreme, deserve the protection of a belief path that allows the subjugation of others by reducing them to personal or private property. Subjugation demeans us all and often has the effect of a slippery slope.
Living by our Beliefs, Values, and Ideals
Telling ourselves that no one is perfect or that we must live realistically is no excuse for not making an honest and focused effort to live by the ideals that we profess. Practicing what we preach only when it suits us or is convenient may sometimes be in our short-term best interest, but it is not a way to long-term validation. Professing something then practicing the opposite (even in private) just because that is how it is done, because it is what everyone else does, or because it is easier, will ultimately hurt the validity of our beliefs, values, and ideals. Forgoing our values for expediency or associating ourselves with those who can cast a negative reflection on them will hurt us not only in the eyes of others, but also subconsciously in how we view ourselves as well. It may even in the long-term threaten that which we claim to live by. And leave us weaker in the long run. We must not mock our values by following them only when they are convenient or in our personal best interest. Living by them resiliently, and not “selling out,” yielding, or compromising to “how life is,” the daily pressures, personal benefits, or standards of the status quo, can be far more powerful. Yes, there is the time and place for powerful or overt action; however, the day-to-day living them out is the most important validation we can give. The powerful, overt action is like a sudden rush of water, while the consistent refusal to compromise is like an unwavering and constant flow. Do not preach your values but live by them. Living (even in private) by the steady, consistent, firm, refusal to give in, yield, or compromise says the most. It is impossible for someone to take our beliefs seriously if we ourselves do not live by them. We must live by them twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for them to be taken seriously. The old adages “lead by example” and “practice what you preach” are very true and must be followed not only in public, but most especially in private. Hypocrisy, on any level, only devalues our ideals; not only to others but to us as well. Hypocrisy is weakness, and not seriously living by our beliefs can only devalue them. We cannot temporarily sacrifice our morals or methods of conduct to promote our ideologies. If we do, we stand for nothing. What can we teach our children that we do not practice ourselves? We can only expect others to act in a way that we ourselves are committed to acting. One of my own favorite self-sayings is, “I’m sorry, but I think you mistake my generosity and kindness for weakness.” Too often, to my disappointment, people do mistake my generosity and kindness for weakness, when it is merely acting upon my philosophy. Sometimes we must follow our philosophies even when doing so is detrimental to our own well-being. The true test in the eyes of others of the seriousness, possible practicality, or especially value of our beliefs is when we follow them even when they can become detrimental to ourselves personally. We must be true to our word if we can ever hope or expect others to be true to theirs. Compromising our views for personal gain, to increase our number of ideological followers, or to achieve gain for our movement will only leave those same views weaker in the long-term to others. Hypocrisy will only leave our message diluted and weak. The more we live by our beliefs, the more we will be able to lead by example. When you lead by example, those who truly believe will follow even when it is not in their own personal best interest.
Liabilities, by their very nature, expose us to weakness. Having overconfidence in our beliefs, values, and ideals can be just as dangerous, or more so, than anything else. We must be confident in them, but not to the point of creating a liability. An example of overconfidence becoming a liability is when one develops assumptions of infallibility. Another is when overconfidence can be used against us. Overconfidence can give a myopic view, and then the dangers may not be seen in the periphery. Overconfidence can also develop a sense of self-superiority or the belief for the need of blind obedience from others. And blind obedience can eventually lead to questions that cannot be answered. For others to respect and admire our values, it is important that we do not become overconfident in them. Sometimes knowing and being able to explain why we believe can be more important to others than the belief, value, or ideal itself. Even an absolute nihilist believes in something, even if that something is nothing. We must remember why we follow them.
Beliefs, Values, and Ideals—The Action of Challenge
Sometimes we can avoid those who confront us or make us question ourselves. But if we are to improve ourselves, we cannot blindly ignore or dismiss those opposing views. We must embrace those views as being just as valid as our own, but we do not necessarily have to accept those views. Exploring those differing views will only improve our views and ourselves. When it comes to the personal ideals of people, they can be very sensitive or touchy about them. And, not being completely aware of them within ourselves can also cause stress. This stress can build up until it is released in a negative way such as in violence or an outburst. I believe that sometimes when someone becomes personally offended, feels threatened by another point of view, or acts out in unrestrained violence, planned violence, or violence through the aggression of domination, they may have doubts about their own views or may have something hidden and fear that it will be found out. In the past at times when someone challenged my beliefs and I became angered, shame was often the next emotion I felt. I may disagree, but I have no grievance against those who are in opposition to me if they truly believe what they do is for the good of everyone. Like many of us, they want something better than what was before. Maybe they can even find themselves within their belief, value, or ideal.
Beliefs, Values, and Ideals—Strengthened through Challenge
Our beliefs, values, and ideals can become strengthened through challenges. Without the exploration and subsequent discussion of different ideals, we could not grow, mature, or even strengthen our own. Disagreement and testing of our beliefs are essential to their continuation, for us and for future generations. Disagreement often exposes holes in them and forces those holes to be filled. The result can be the strengthening of those values or the altering of them to bring them into modern times, often for the betterment of their chances of survival into modern times. As long as there is disagreement there is a need for improvement. And there is always room for improvement. For the strength and advancement of our belief systems we must continually test them. Each time our ideals survive one of our tests they become stronger and more valid. And if they do not survive our tests, then we have the opportunity to ask why, and must wonder how strongly we believed in them in the first place. We must remember the past beliefs of history. The beliefs of yesterday can often be the mythologies of tomorrow. And our beliefs are much too important to be left by the wayside. Sometimes it is only a matter of modernization in order for them to survive and adapt to the future. However, we must not forget the original ideals in case our current path of modernization becomes incorrect, corrupted, or improperly co-opted, and needs to be redone or rethought according to the original ideal. We also cannot allow that ideal to become twisted, corrupted, or demeaned. How can we expect others to readily begin to modernize their values until we are willing to begin to modernize our own, so they can adapt with the changing times and survive into the future for ourselves and our future generations? We have the opportunity to modernize what we live by so they can survive into the future and keep their significance.
Change
What someone believes in can be a strong and a most powerful thing. Thus, we cannot simply ask people to change their beliefs. Nor do we have any right to. We must not only accept the right of others to follow their ideological beliefs (including faiths), but also encourage others to follow their own paths. If we do not do this, then our acceptance of the beliefs of others, and especially their acceptance of our own, will be hollow and subject to erosion. Not allowing others to follow their own beliefs can cause them to resent ours. This resentment can weaken our ability to protect our own beliefs, prevent others from accepting our beliefs, or ultimately damage the reputation of our beliefs.
How can we judge other people based on our own life experiences, paths, views, and truths when they have had different ones? How can we condemn someone who does something for their own survival that we consider illegal or immoral, when we offer them no appealing and obtainable legal alternatives? An analogy of this point could be that of one person living on the side of a mountain and another living on the opposite side of the same mountain. Both wish to climb and reach the same summit. One side of the mountain is covered in snow and the other is covered in desert. The one living in the desert cannot criticize the one living with snow for wearing snowshoes, just as the one who lives with snow cannot criticize the one from the desert for wearing desert wear to protect themselves from the sand.
I have always found many of the disputes between the major monotheistic religions of the world disheartening, especially considering each of them mention many of the original people. What if the major monotheistic religions of the world are just different chapters in the same book? Perhaps, some just find their truth in one particular chapter?
However, back to the subject of change. While it is our personal obligation to show alternative solutions and opinions, including our own, to others, it is also our personal responsibility to show that these differing solutions and opinions are demonstrated correctly and in a palatable way. It is important that when educating or exposing people to different beliefs it is done in an honorable and respectful way. But we cannot expect others to honestly change or accept a certain belief if we argue, threaten, ridicule, bribe, or bully them into submission. This is when we turn from offering to forcing. When we attempt to bring others to our way of thinking by force, there is a great possibility that we may teach the rejection of it. Forcing our beliefs onto others will only weaken our beliefs in the long-term. It weakens our beliefs in the sense that we may have an infiltration of nonbelievers. People who force their ideas upon others, trying to give what they believe to be freedom, sometimes unknowingly destroy the very thing that they attempt to create. People who display their religious and social values through violence and control sadden me. They often discredit an important message in the delivery. People who show their views through mental and physical control should be ignored, but still watched very closely so as not to allow them to continue their actions. Giving them any attention, positive or negative, has the possibility of only encouraging them more.
Dictating our views directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily, is still dictating our views. We must think for ourselves and no one else. We cannot expect others to give up their beliefs simply because we think it is wrong or detrimental for them to have those beliefs. There are many people who will resist something even if it is for their own good. A good and just society does not force its views on its children but teaches them how to make their own responsible decisions. Moreover, a society must let people make their own choices even if those choices go against customary views and/or customs, so long as they do not harm others and are able to let society evolve forward and improve themselves in the process. Even though we know an answer, sometimes we have no other choice but to wait until others are ready to admit what we already know. Sometimes if we instruct or insist upon something, people will only give the appearance of doing or accepting it. Sometimes, the best way for others to learn is if we let them do wrong and let them learn from their own mistakes. And sometimes they must believe something is their own idea in order for them to make an honest effort of doing it on their own. If we disagree with the tactics of someone else, we must try not to show anger toward them no matter how ignorant we think they are. Remember, if we do not agree with the tactics of someone else, then we must not use those same tactics against them. If we do, we are no better than they. If we feel a need to prove or force our beliefs onto another, then perhaps we do not believe in them ourselves. If we are truly interested in persuading others to follow our way of perception or elevating our view, we should do so in a way that focuses on welcoming. If our belief is strong enough, they will take it willingly rather than being force-fed. A willing participant is much more powerful than an unwilling participant.
Drastic change, when introduced, can be more effective and efficient than subtle change. But when it backfires, it can have more traumatic and dangerous consequences. It is something that can be utilized, but often should be avoided. And it must be carefully and skillfully done as it often runs a greater risk of backfire. Also, there is the risk that when drastic change does backfire there may be a much more difficult time to regain the confidence, ability, or circumstances needed to try implementing that particular change again. No matter in what form it may be reintroduced, it may have the probability of a much greater resistance. People, for better or worse, are more willing to tolerate, accept, or follow subtle change rather than drastic change. Yes, when subtle change is introduced there can be resistance. However, in many cases this resistance can be gradually overcome with only a few holdouts remaining. However, subtle change also runs the risk of not being implemented quickly enough. Both forms of change can have their own form of resistance and holdouts. So, we must save what we can in the meantime. We cannot allow those who refuse to change or adapt jeopardize our safety or future.
The Need of Society for the Individual
The “normal” actions that people take, I fear, can be a detriment and possibly lead to the end of the world. This why in some respects, I try to exist outside the normal constructs of the society that we have created for ourselves. Again, it is important to restate that those with new or different ideas may have important insights that others may have overlooked. Imagine a world where those who knew of a better solution or answer did not express it. The individual is the spark that gives light to the society through invention or inspiration. The individual can also often be the social consciousness of the group, help decipher the essence of the group for others, or even help guide the whole group on the correct path. The changing of the course of a river starts with one trickle, and that trickle starts with one drop deviating away from the common flow. We must always remember that any direction any group has ever taken has always started out with that first individual.
Result of a Loss of the Individual in Society
The need of society for the individual is essential. The individual is the vitality of society. Among other things, it is needed for preventing stagnation and encouraging growth. The independence of the individual renews society. The independence of the individual is what helps spark creativity. And creativity is what helps us adapt. Lack of creativity will result in lack of exploration, and exploration is one of the fundamental properties of knowledge and adaptation. Without these fundamental properties, learning becomes unproductive and just simple regurgitation. When there is only learning by regurgitation, the true comprehension of explanation becomes lost and true learning will take longer, if it happens at all. True comprehension is needed for understanding the world around us. When a society is no longer capable of learning, the society is doomed to wither.
Creativity or Stagnation
The more stagnant we become the less we are able to expand the human mind and potential. When we fail to avoid stagnation, we fail to evolve and adapt. I dread stagnation because when we fail to adapt, we die. If it were not for thinking outside the norm, people could still think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. In other words, without new or innovative ways of thinking we would have made no progress in society.
New or innovative ways of thinking can first appear disguised by being interwoven with other thoughts or ideas. They also can at first appear to be completely unrelated with others. We must keep our ability to discover new ideas open. I myself at times find thoughts racing through my mind appearing scrambled and all competing with one another. Finding and adding innovative ideas, then grafting those ideas into the previous and old ideas is what creates new ones. In the history of society, some theories have become lost, then found again—sometimes only to be dismissed yet again. Many theories have experienced these stages throughout history. Many of them have even benefited us all in some way. Some theories throughout history have been laughed at, then eventually turned deadly or helped humankind achieve greatness. When we hear theories, we must remember them and not ignore them no matter how improbable they may seem to us. I must restate, improbable does not mean impossible. We cannot ignore those that may seem ridiculous or radical to us; what if something improbable happens from them? Whether it does or does not, we must be careful. What may those who believe in them do?
Encouraging Creativity
When we cause other people to feel cheated by us, we can ultimately cheat ourselves, because we can contribute to discouraging them from creating for us. Also, when we discourage others by limiting or trying to control new ideas or thoughts, it dissuades them from being creative or suggesting new ideas. In addition, when we make a person feel that their ideas are not as important as those of others, we can set in motion the thought of inferiority or discouragement. These are some of the ways of hindering the development and suggestion of new ideas, inventions, discoveries, and thoughts. Creativity is the necessary element for these. Not only are all of these required by society for vitality, but they are also required by the individual for the same reasons. Creativity is what helps stimulate the individual and helps keep the mind active and young. Keeping the mind active and young is important to the individual and in turn the society. It is important, with the responsibility of adulthood, that we continue in our enthusiasm for learning. I suspect we can all have at times a childlike enthusiasm for learning, whether we will admit it or not.
The Importance of the Preservation of Individuality in Society
Are we ever allowed to be ourselves? How much are we allowed to be ourselves? To what extent will society allow us to be individuals? While people often admire or respect others for being themselves or being independent, often in many ways they do not condone it. Although we say that people should be unique or express individually, we often show them distaste, displeasure, or mockery when they are. Some people have always been too concerned about what others may think. What a sad thing that is. It shows no self-worth. When we modify our behavior to the standards of the majority to function in a society, we must be careful not to lose our separate views and identity. When we lose our individuality apart from the group, we lose the ability to change and grow, which loss then directly casts a shadow on the community. These separate views and ideas are essential for growth, so that we do not become complacent and stagnant as a society. When we become complacent or stagnant as a society, society becomes vulnerable and susceptible. This can result in the unsupervised control of undesirable domestic or foreign forces controlling the citizenry. In order for the individual to contribute to, protect, or inspire the community, the individual must remain an individual. For the security and benefit of the whole, it is critical we do not hold the individual back from contributing to society to their best and full potential. It is also just as important, in supporting the individual, that we ensure the whole is not deprived or made vulnerable. We must remain separate from the whole, yet still serve the separate as well as the whole.
As the world becomes figuratively smaller, it becomes even more important to protect individuality, free will, independence, and autonomy. It is essential that we remain distinct and independent from each other for regional autonomy and cultural preservation. Remaining independent is critical to preserving a way of life, cultural heritage, and autonomy—and more importantly, to preserving and protecting the individual from too much globalization. In our efforts to be more attentive and elevate the community, we cannot forget the specific needs of the individual. In my opinion, in order to grow and at the very least survive, we must turn more of our efforts and concern to the elevation of the community while not ignoring the individual.
Growth of the Outcast as a Community
There have always been what we call “outcasts” in societies. Their numbers have always been great, and it is only logical that their numbers and diversity should grow with society. There are differences between the so-called outcasts of today and those of earlier centuries. Today in the opinions of some their numbers are growing at a faster rate than that of the general population of society. Some also say that the types of outcasts have also become more diversified. They are also more interconnected with other so-called outcasts than previously. With societal changes, they have gained more rights, abilities, visibility, recognition, and prominence both outside and inside their groups. They have additionally become better connected with themselves and other groups through the help of technology. They can feel more comfortable and confident in standing up for themselves and have become united with each other and other groups. Their ability to form their own communities within larger communities has grown proportionally as well. With the help of technology, they are also no longer confined geographically. This can evoke more apprehension in the eyes of the so-called normal, average, traditional, or conformist population. It is sad that some of these so-called outsider groups can take better care of their own and sometimes even others outside of their groups than the “normal, good, upstanding people” of the “norm.” Forced into exclusion and inspired by individuality, they tend to encourage more creativity. Being a “nonconformist” is within the rights of all of us. However, if we do not wish to conform, then it is also our duty to be honest with ourselves and others, as well as make sure that we do no harm in the process. We must put our nonconformity to positive or constructive use.
Everyone Contributes or Makes an Honest Effort
We must make sure that people are responsible for taking care of themselves. I do not believe in handouts; however, I do believe we are responsible for helping and supporting others on their paths to self-sufficiency. We must assist and give them hope to help themselves. It is not our duty to help those who can already help themselves, but it is our duty to give them hope and show those who can help themselves, how to do so. If we do not give them hope and show them that they are able, then, by our inaction, we are responsible. It is our responsibility to assist and teach those who have the capacity and capability to protect or support themselves how to do so to the best of their personal abilities. However, even more importantly, it is our responsibility to assist and instruct them in what self-sufficiencies they can do for themselves and help them in their possible contributions to society. It is critical, not only for our well-being but theirs, to give them the reliability of self-sufficiency. Before we complain about a person who lives on the street or lives off the government and ask them to get a job, we should already have a sufficient self-supportive job for them or ensure that they have the adequate resources to find one themselves. Is it fair to tell them to go get a job when we ourselves cannot find a reasonable job or supportive structure for them? A man who has never had to worry about going without shoes cannot teach another man how to get them. It is time for us to be self-sufficient again. In this, we have failed. To name a few of the areas that we have failed in: supplying all with inspiration, with ability to explore their abilities, and with access to resources to help them contribute to the best of their abilities.
While we should be required to honestly do what we can to help others become self-sufficient, it is not for us to do it for them. We should not be required to do the work for another who is able to do it for themselves. In that same way, they should not have to do ours. It is important that we accept and do our true fair share to the best of our abilities and assist others in the same endeavor of doing theirs. It is important that we make a fair and honest contribution to society, and it is also just as important that we insist that others accept and do their fair share to the best of their abilities as well. We have also failed in this. While there should be encouragement for people to contribute to society, they should not be forced to. Yet, we also cannot allow individuals to become virtual slaves to society. Individuals also should not be allowed to only feed off of society. We cannot allow ourselves to become virtual slaves to those who feed off of society, without contributing what they can. In our new world of tomorrow, it will be crucial that everyone contribute, or at the very least, not be a detriment to society in general.
Helping Others Find their Potential for Contributing
None of us is perfect, but everyone possesses that discovered or undiscovered potential, unique talent, or particular insight that they can utilize to contribute to the survival or advancement of society. Some may never get the opportunity to explore or even tap that which they possess. I believe it is just a matter of finding, explaining, and demonstrating its significance. Even if we do not believe what others may have is real or significant, we still must not dismiss what may seem to be “insignificant” contributions. The various assistance we give to these individuals is not a purely selfless act. We live in a world of cause and effect—what appears to be their insignificant advancement, contribution, et cetera, may be ultimately useful to the society. It may give the support, inspiration, tools, ability, or free up the time necessary for others to contribute, or provide any variety of assistance that others need for them to make what we consider to be a “significant” contribution.
People need to have the right to use their abilities and have the necessary tools to pursue their own potential and explore the best of their particular talents of contribution. We must also encourage and help the individual to discover and explore what unique or hidden talents they may have, while making sure all are given adequate encouragement and resources. A true opportunity for a “hand up” needs to be genuine and equally given to all. We cannot offer someone a hand up with one hand while at the same time pushing them down with the other. We need to encourage the individual to pursue their abilities to improve themselves and society in general. Some of the ways we can do this are to provide them with opportunities and promote self-sufficiency, education, self-reliance, and ingenuity. We must never diminish the possible potential, abilities, or talents of ourselves or others. Anyone can do or become almost anything that they wish; it just takes access to opportunities, dedication, and drive. We must give each person a true and honest chance to learn how to support and advance themselves as a positive contributor to society. Or, at the very least, we must negate some of the reasons why we do not make more of an effort in assisting people to find their abilities and inspiration to contribute, and how to make these contributions. In not making more of an effort in this, we have failed, and continually fail, many.
Our Failure in Preserving the Ability to Contribute
We have failed to put in place adequate opportunities that allow the individual to explore and succeed. We have failed in fully helping those with unique gifts, talents, skills, and abilities to explore and succeed beyond their peers, even if in only one specific area. We have failed to cultivate their unique areas as a result of judging them on their deficiencies. We must ensure that their deficiencies in some areas do not prevent them from fully maximizing their progress in those areas where they may have those extraordinary gifts or skills. Not allowing, encouraging, or aiding people to succeed in their exceptional areas until they succeed in their deficient areas is a waste not only to them, but to us as well. Imagine the lost insights they could have given us. Imagine the waste of the various resources compared to the potential benefits and reimbursements they could have given to society, and therefore to us. Imagine what they and we would have gained. We have also failed, at the same time, the average individual in general. We have failed to ensure that they are elevated as well. We have failed to ensure that all are adequately supplied and encouraged. We have limited them through our discounting of them. We cannot continue to set limits on others, just as we cannot let them limit us. We cannot continue to allow ourselves to limit others in what they can do or become, just as we cannot allow others to limit us.
Rewards and Responsibilities
We must ensure that all have access to benefits based on their needs, their attempt not to be slothful, potential benefit to society, aptitude, drive, et cetera. A society must require all individuals to better themselves and society on their own, and encourage, reward, and adequately supply them with the tools and encouragement to do so. At the same time, society must help, assist, and not hamper the efforts of other individuals in the society. We must ensure that responsibilities and rewards are fairly distributed to the individual. Society must not leave anyone behind. Yes, sometimes special rewards are appropriate; however, at the same time, all must be treated equally and we must ensure that no individual is given special privilege. Of course, special rewards or extra resources dedicated to the individual is predicated on their proportional liability—the proportional liability being the diversion of resources away from other individuals and that overall effect on society. We must ensure that we honestly seek the maximum benefit to the world along with ensuring costs do not outweigh the benefit. We must pay attention and be careful not to burden either ourselves or others disproportionately. We must be mindful in our judgment of cost to society and the individual versus the benefit. Pay attention to benefits of circumstance and environment, and the equality of benefit and reward. Stability and balancing the equation must not be forfeit. It is paramount that both ourselves and others be accountable for rewards and benefits that are received based on need, contribution, effort, sacrifice, and work. We must not fail in assisting people with their possible service while helping keep their independence and individuality. Extra encouragement should be given to those who make the effort to strive. Those who go above and beyond what is expected of them in order to contribute, should be encouraged and rewarded without asking. But they should not expect a reward as a condition for contributing.
Unfortunately, in the world of today it seems there is a great imbalance of rewards and responsibilities. Today, within our accountabilities, awarenesses, and especially abilities, we must not forget or ignore all of the benefits and rewards that all deserve, so we all may have a better chance at mutual survival, progression, and protection. Yet, in the process of fulfilling our personal responsibilities to everyone globally, we cannot afford to let anyone lose independence. We must also be careful when thinking of ourselves, and not forget that we are only one individual or a single community of many. We are all globally accountable for mutual survival. We cannot afford to allow ourselves or anyone else to lose individual government, independence, free will, and self-determination. We must still preserve our individuality, freedom, and separate identities, and live out our lives accordingly.