A Question of Future
‘A Question of Future’
By Tony DeLorger © 2011
Time imparts a dull numbness on those of us already on the other side of that sine wave of life. With assisting gravity, the final downward journey seems not only faster, but more prone to dangerous rocky outcrops. Often, with the light of day so far behind us, we can barely feel its life-giving warmth against the back of our aged necks. After time has wasted us within this our calamitous world, we have endured so much of the negative, that it is near impossible to see even the possibility of change. Century after century we evolve spectacularly in all the wrong areas, and when life itself retaliates, slither back like dark serpents, to find solace within the refuge of our monoliths of greed and techno-accumulations. In our arrogance we have deemed ourselves heroes and then, to make matters worse, we spite the lives and beliefs of others, to justify our own idea of right and actions enacted for bettering our kind. When will we learn?
I dream of utopia, a world where humanity cares for humanity regardless of creed or colour, resources are shared and indifference to the plight of others is replaced with compassion. I am not alone. I know that. But can this dream become a reality? Is this utopian world simply a flight of fancy? I think not. I believe that if we can visualise this utopia, see it in our minds, it can become real. After all, it is how all that has come before us came into being. First there was an idea, then a process and finally an achievement.
So whom do we trust, who can we rely on to guide us toward this better way of life? Government? Religion? World Leaders?
I think not, because they are simply the point of the blade, the voice and therefore propagators of the greed. So how do we reverse this conspiracy of life, this abomination of so-called civilised society? The answer is simplicity itself; it starts with us, you and I.
We have allowed the world to become what it is because we have said nothing, sat back and watched ourselves decline, become desensitised and accepting of a world of hate, racism and greed. No-one else is to blame- not governments, not religions, not leaders, but every one of us. We let it all happen. We watched and said nothing, and as long as it didn’t affect us, we slept soundly in our cosy beds.
So what is wrong with us? How could we let this injustice take place? Human beings are flawed. Our evolution may seem spectacular to us, but we are children, driven by primitive urges. We judge, hate, we are jealous, greedy and ambitious. We dream not of being happy, but having more than someone else, being better than someone else. Until we learn to control these urges, we can never live in a successful utopian society; we can never live in any society that will work, whether it is communist, republican, democratic or calathumpian. The fact is clear that no concept of social structure can ever be successful until the urges for power, corruption and greed are overcome.
So how do we begin to effect change? Those to whom we have given power are in turn governed by other powers, all based on economic factors. Without this economic power there can be no ascension to political power. The leadership is simply a pinnacle, with a tiered structure beneath, of those people with whom the power and assets of the power must be either shared or at least of benefit to. To uphold political power, there must be a mass communication to the public to continue support and the belief in the direction of the governing body. Today this is the most prevalent and decisive aspect of political power- the media. Technology is now the means by which the world operates. What we see, we believe, and what we approve of and vote for is governed by television and what is presented to us. Those in power have the ultimate weapon, the ultimate manipulation of reality.
Look at it this way. Our world is in constant war. What do we watch on television and at the movies, and at home on videos? We watch war, conflict, and horror- we are overwhelmed by it. So why do we want to watch it, why are we so interested in watching hate, destruction, gore? Perhaps we are not. Perhaps that is what we are taught to watch and taught to accept.
Governments of the world, nearly all of them, rule by fear of one kind or another. People driven by fear are easily manipulated and will respond in a predictable way. This way, governments can enact their agenda with little interference. With the general populace in fear, it is not difficult for a government to show how protective it can be, with police, armed forces or whatever. Without the government, there is no safety. Without aggressive foreign policy, the odd invasion, dominance and control there can be no safety. All of this is overridden by commercial gain and governments are driven to success and preserving power by this fact. So who is controlling whom? That is a good question. The answer to that is so complex it is almost unanswerable. The cycle of greed, scratching backs, blackmail and manipulation has been going on for so long, no-one can remember who started it, only that we always have to consider all the beneficiaries. The bottom line is that if we don’t arrest this cycle, then nothing will ever change. This cycle is ingrained in our thinking, every one of us. If we never question it, how can we ever expect change? I for one want my kids to grow up in a world of peace and prosperity, not a world of struggle and conflict. Utopia is a long way off, but there must be a start and soon, before it’s all too late.
The magic word here is money. How can we overcome a society that is driven by, and the powers that be, exist because of, money? The answer is simple. We the public have a power far greater than we think we have. Imagine if we decided not to see movies about war. Soon the studios would realise that they wouldn’t make any money if the public wouldn’t pay money to see the movies. So they would then make movies about subjects the public were interested in.
If the public refused to watch TV programmes that were violent or immoral, how long do you think it would take the TV stations to change their format? You see we have the ultimate power and the catalyst for change- how we spend our money. It all gets back to us. If we revert to our animal instincts and urges and continue to support a society that feeds on negativity and the worst aspects of life, then there will always be a world that reflects that acceptance. Should we change this cycle, then the world will change as a consequence. If we accept fear as our motivator, then we open the door to our worst fears.
The guns and deaths by guns in America is a testament to this fear. That society is filled with fear; fed it day after day on hundreds of channels showing graphic pictures of war, crime, corruption, greed and propagating the fear of race, religion, terrorism, foreign attack and so on. In Canada, there are more guns per capita than in the US, but only a fraction of the gun deaths. Why is that? That society is not governed by fear- not inundated with negative reinforcement.
In Australia we are lucky to live in a society that is fairly safe, and free from much what is going on in the world. But we are heading in that same direction. We, the people, of not only this country but also the world, must make some important decisions, and soon.
The Focus on Religion
How many people have died in the name of religion? How easily can human beings justify crime in the name of a higher power? Spirituality and indeed religious belief is a good thing, surely. It is interesting that we can use it as a justification to do just about anything. Equality must have a place in religion, even for those apart from your own religion. Anyone’s view must at least be respected. The arrogance in thinking that one belief is right and another wrong simply shows ignorance. We are discussing faith here, not a concrete scientific fact. How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that their concept of God is more right than anybody else’s concept? Then, as if arrogance wasn’t enough, to persecute and indeed kill someone just because they didn’t agree with your view is utter lunacy. So why does this happen?
I’m no atheist but then again I don’t adhere to any dogma, to do with religion or anything else. My personal belief is that spirituality is important and I adhere to a philosophy of respect and compassion to the plight and experience of others. What I do not believe in is any form of religious or racial hatred. If we let difference divide us, then there will never be any form of harmony, because as human beings we are all different. That difference should be the spice in our lives, the means by which we learn and accept all views and ideas as having a part of our earthly experience. Instead, look at what we have done with it. Look what conflict has evolved from this difference and contention, and continues to do so.
Religion should never divide- ‘us against them’. Religion is surely a belief in compassion and accepting all God’s creatures. The holy books state it in black-and-white, then why don’t people adhere to it? It is a fundamental ideology of all religions, and throughout history it has been the reason for war- simply being different.
So why do people cling to ideologies and then act in such uncharacteristic ways to uphold their connection to them? The answer is security. Human beings need to feel like they belong, they have importance and worth. These are basic needs and for our own peace of mind we need to establish connection to the world in a meaningful way. This need for many people, is so overpowering that they will succumb to any form of indoctrination that in the end will have them agreeing to do just about anything in the name of their belief. ‘Suicide bombers’ are a perfect example. Their indoctrination into their religious belief is so complete that they honestly believe that killing innocent people and themselves is positive, their actions in the name of God. This slow dismantling of the self is the tool that dictators use to establish and preserve power. ‘Being a part of the group’ is also the device that is used to disseminate hatred and aggression toward other groups of dissimilar belief. The catchphrase used here is ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us.’
This phenomenon, in regard to religion, is today the greatest threat to world freedom. Just look at all the major conflicts in the world and you cannot do anything but agree that most are based on religion, in one way or another. Again, our primitive urges are at the forefront of our actions. This is not to say that religion is wrong, but to believe in anything so completely that you cast aside all common sense and especially the respect for other human beings can’t be right. Further, to use that belief as a justification to commit crimes against humanity is not only against the fundamental beliefs of religion but also against the laws that govern us in our varied societies. Racial hatred and genocide can never be promoted by a religion of any worth. Such a religion would be about the will of men, not of God.
But man can use religion like any other philosophy, to gain some earthly advantage, whether it is power, greed or whatever. Much of the present conflicts are driven by such men, entrenched in their own beliefs and willing to do anything to destroy men of other beliefs.
Surely the differences we can share and learn from, must elevate our consciousness, not be a threat in any way. Having met many people of different religions, they all want what I want out of life that is. ‘to live in peace and harmony’. If this is what most people want, why does the world exist as it does, in virtual war? The answer is fear.
We develop attitudes toward peoples, toward wars, toward circumstances, all based on what we know about them. And how do we know about them? We can only know what we have been told or shown, by the media. They are the propagators of ‘the truth’, if that is what it is. But do those who control the media, have the ultimate of all powers? Yes they do, and they exercise that power every day. Inadvertantly, the media runs the world. They are not world leaders or religious leaders, they are the wealthy, the ‘nouveau riche’, and the people who can make or break political ascension. So, are these media moguls unbiased or without political agenda? I think not. With power comes a responsibility, and since governments oversee the activities of these powerful magnates, they themselves are indebted to them in many ways about their own power and preserving it.
So governments make laws to control the media and the media make the politicians. It is not all that easy to see where the loyalties lay, but there are loyalties and that influence can govern what we see as average citizens of our modern societies. With this going on, whom do we believe? Again, whom do we trust? We must trust in our own hearts and not ‘jump to conclusions’, as the powers that be may want it. We, as citizens of the world must take responsibility for what is happening and refuse to take on the negative dialogue that is so often fed to us.
Do you honestly believe that all the Muslims in the world want all Christians dead? Of course they don’t. I have met many Muslims and have found them to be a respectful and peace-loving people. Again, most Christians want peace, so do the Buddhists and almost every other religion. How could anyone want conflict and death, when peace and mutual respect is so easily attained? We simply need to voice our opinion, to not accept the negative dialogue of the fundamentalist and lunatics that continually escalate the lies between us. When we start looking at one another without the affects of fear and propaganda in our minds, we will see differently. We will then see the lies are fed to us based on agendas, not truth. That is a hard pill to swallow, and it is a sad indication of what our race has become. But if we do not address this problem, it is only a matter of time before we do not have a life at all. Religion should be a way of honouring our creation, not a way of trying to segregate or destroy it.
It is a chosen few that sway the masses into false belief. The fundamentalists in religion look on the Holy Scriptures and interpret the writings written thousands of years ago, giving meanings that hardly apply to life today. If we adhered to such archaic ideas, we would simply be throwing away thousands of years of growth and social advancement. But this is what these fundamentalists want- to hold on to the past and to hold the reigns of power. This is rarely about religious teachings and more often about the will of men, intent on propagating the struggle to maintain life for their own advantage.
Again, we must see past the words of leaders, see the unwritten dialogue and the content of truth. The basis of all religions is virtually the same and includes ideas such as compassion, understanding, respect, brotherhood, and above all love. Any religious leader that promotes anything other than these types of ideas does not represent his religion. Religion is not politics; it is not a commercial enterprise and can never be the promoter of war. So with this in mind, how can you as a citizen of the world, respond to any religious leader that promotes anything other than what religion should be about.
It is we the masses that have the power. If we follow the propagators of lies and destruction, then what other world should we expect to live in, than one at war with itself?
The Systems of Politics
With ever-increasing populations, the world faces huge problems- too many mouths to feed, too little work and political systems that all eventually fail. Why is it that every form of government deteriorates into political and financial ruin? The answer is simple- human beings are imperfect. There’s always going to be someone who wants more, wants to be better than someone else. Political leaders have ascended to the heights of power because they have learned to play the game, learned that manipulation, lying and deceit have a place in political success and a rise to power. Those not tough enough to accept this process rarely rise to the top. Reality is hard at the top, continually playing one thing off against another. Nothing is ever black-and-white and compromise is always in play, decisions based on so many reasons that we poor citizens hardly ever know the full story. So, with all this corruption, compromise and personal agendas, how are we to find just rule and governments that will work for the people, not simply for their own benefit? The answer is that at present, we will not.
The ground rules for society have long been set and the process of change can only be a step by step process. While money remains the single most important reason in the rise to political power, nothing will ever change by much.
Political leaders would be far better selected by academics that could provide a broad criterion for selection. It should perhaps be based on not only financial and business acumen, but also a deep compassion and understanding of the needs of people. There should be a will to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place for all of its inhabitants. These people should be those whom we award ‘Person of the Year’ or those who have attributed to their country by business development, diplomacy or the like. This group of governors, I believe, should be a perfect mix of business people, humanitarians, environmentalists, and diplomats, scientific, legal and law enforcement experts, all of both sexes. Our governors should not be driven by money and power, but should serve their country in an apolitical environment, there to administer the will of the people. A situation would have to evolve by which leaders could not be corrupted and their decisions based on facts, not political agendas or fixed policies. The voice of the people would have to be more hands-on and involved in a process of decision making more regularly. For example, in our present Australian democracy we vote for a representative within our constituency that represents us in parliament. Our wishes are second-hand at best. Our representative is firstly bound by the party politics with which he is associated, except of course if he or she is an independent. Apart from referendums, which happen rarely, our voices are only heard as an echo. Depending on where the party is heading at the time and what influences are in play, our input could be compared to an ant shouting at an elephant.
Of course, with minor decisions the governing body must have power to exercise action. But where major issues about a particular municipality or state or the entire country are concerned, then the citizens involved should be presented with the relative information and vote. If people are to play a real role in democracy, then voting should be a regular occasion that begins with an unbiased document of facts that expresses both sides of an argument. This should, I believe, be the only usefulness of the present two party system.
I can see in our future a simply electronic device connected to our communications system that allows us, in the comfort of our homes, to be registered and vote one way or another on any particular issue. With registered voters making their wishes known, it will not be up to politicians to weigh the scales of political impact, deciding who owes who and deliberating policies that can or cannot be changed. Policies would end being not of parties but of the people, changing as the times demand.
This democracy could only succeed if the media are more controlled and adhere to a bipartisan view of politics. When a media network promotes bias, then the views of the people are corrupted and therefore invalid. For this democracy to work, the media must be unbiased and apolitical as well as the governing body. Presently the media are controlled by conglomerates that are in turn governed by bodies dictated to by government policy. This system would have to change and laws would have to change, making these financial moguls more responsible for what is aired and acceptable under this new style of government. Again the question of content, censorship etc can be ascertained by public vote. The two traditional parties would be simply there to debate opposing views and to present those views to the people, who will ultimately make the final decision. The governing body would then act on that decision.
This may sound far-fetched but if government is taken from those beholding to Money Lords, predestined policies and driven by personal agendas, there will be a clear-cut move toward a real democracy. Then the people have a real part to play in the process of government.
This idea is not socialism but a real democracy. The blueprint would of course be complex, and the most important aspect would be the choice of the members of the governing body. Controls put in place to rid the system of corruption would be paramount and there would have to be an amended constitution based on this form of government process.
What I’m talking about here is the need for a real ‘Revolution’, a dramatic change in the process of government. We don’t have to overthrow anyone, by force or by any other means. We simply have to reassess the world in which we live and admit the present systems are not working and will eventually fail. If we aim to rid the government process of corruption and remove the need for money for those to rise to power, we are removing the secondary agendas from politics. Without greed and power hunger we would open a path for the people to speak their minds and take a valid role within the democratic process.
One cause I believe to be the most responsible for our declining society is the breakdown of family. The family unit is like a cell. When the cells break down the organism will eventually die and that is what is happening to our society. With increased poverty, fewer jobs, homelessness, escalating crime and youth suicide, our future looks grim. Globally, our population will increase this year by 125.5 million, and deaths will only be about 51.6 million. This means that each year we add some 70 odd million people to our already high 6.5 billion world population. So what has happened to take us down a road fraught with so many social problems, and how can we arrest this pattern of destruction?
Regardless of population size, firstly we must take a hard look at the family unit, something that in the past has made our civilisation great. The dismantling of this basic unit has been a slow and insidious symptom of economic changes since the Second World War. With technologies racing ahead at phenomenal speed, and the cost of living in our ever-transforming world increasing, we have been forced to redistribute our time and energy to suit this changing environment. As a result, we now work longer, have far greater stress and responsibility with little time or energy left for family and relaxation.
Between 1981 and 1996 in Australia, the incidents of both parents working increased from 41% to 54%, families on the dole grew by 3% over the same period and single income families decreased significantly. Today most parents both have to work to afford the style of living to which they have grown accustomed. We have all fallen for the trappings of technology and comfort, but have often sacrificed what is important.
Children today in our wealthy society, are given everything they could want physically, by circumstance and the society in which we live, but emotionally it is another matter. Many of their role models (the parents) are rarely home. They are workaholics and when they are home are stressed, exhausted and want nothing but to have a stiff drink, relax and not have to deal with anything more in their day. These children have become the casualties of this social development, having to grow up in either day care or responsible for themselves, alone at home. This circumstance has created many problems. Not having attainable role models, not being shown enough love, not having supervision, not understanding boundaries of behaviour, having too much money, too much freedom and being spoilt from overcompensatory parents are but a few of these problems. In the end this can translate into poorly adjusted children.
As relationships break down between parents and children, the children enter their most vulnerable years, the teens, to not care about their family, their education, their future or anything else. Those children then grow up into poorly adjusted adults. Subsequently, emotional problems, drug taking, crime, homelessness, suicide, and a plethora of other issues can arise from this circumstance.
This may seem a simplification or over-exaggeration of the issue, but if this trend does not change, what future has our society? All children will of course not experience this process but those who do are adding to the massive social problems that our society is already facing. And the cost to society is astronomical. Surely the breakdown of families needs to be addressed from the root of the issue. If the financial burden placed on families was eased in some way so the structure was not pulled apart society I believe, would be better off. As a consequence the family unit could be strengthened and our children would have a more tangible future. The answer is of course not so simple. But there should be some way that struggling parents can make workable choices when it comes to suitably caring for their children and working to pay off their mortgages and upholding a good standard of living for their family.
Another aspect of this development is that many children are growing up expecting that life owe them a living. With technology and comfort at such a high level in our modern society, children can grow up to believe the lifestyle that their struggling parents have afforded them will automatically follow as they reach their adult years. This idea gives them a false expectation of the real world and when they have to struggle themselves, they resent the fact and respond in negative ways, acting like the spoilt children that they have ultimately become. Many youths today have little respect for people, authority or the system that can for them; seem far more demanding and stressful that it has ever been for their parents. The rise in youth suicide is a testament to that phenomenon. The Bureau of Statistics reveals that in 1983 suicides represented 6% per 100,000 of population of all premature death. In 1995 that percentage rose to 9.2% and five out of the last ten years the suicide rates have exceeded 13% per 100,000 of population. Since 1982 the suicide rates for males between 15-24 has been the highest rates of all. There are many socio-economic factors woven into these statistics, with two aspects prominent. Poverty increased the percentages as did unemployment, and nearly 90% of suicides involved some form of mental illness, one of the main disorders being depression.
The world today is a harsh place, highly competitive, stressful on many levels, especially for school-leavers, facing less opportunities and available jobs. In many countries there is inadequate lower education and exorbitantly expensive higher education, making it prohibitive for average people to better themselves and to have a secure future. Add to that the constant threat of war and terrorism as well as ever-increasing criminal activity, racial hatred and religious vilification and one can see how scary a world children have to face. So where do we start to reverse such negativity?
Surely in a perfect world, taking care of our children, the future of our nation and the world, would have to be the priority. The social system has to further address the family as an issue. It has to address the financial pressures of today’s living and enable people to both work and to adequately care for their children, without sacrificing either. Secondly, education should be both exemplary and affordable to ensure all children have the same opportunities and that our future generations can adequately carry the nation’s future successfully. Thirdly, the social security system must not support policies that in essence, divide families. For example, young teenagers who are disenchanted with their parents concerns and boundaries of discipline can claim abuse and be financially supported by the social security system. Inadvertantly this places these children in a more vulnerable situation, one that could hinder their development and ultimately keep them isolated from those who care about them. The family unit must be supported and encouraged on all levels. After all it is the basic cell of the organism that we call society.
The next thought is how are we going to afford these radical changes? All these ideas cost money, yes, and so does government. In our three tiered Australian government structure (local, state and federal) we are so top-heavy with administration, that if we adopted a more efficient democratic model, more than half of this wasted could be dispensed with. If local councils managed the basic needs of government, state government could possibly be dismantled. From the present two party system, who in this democratic model could be responsible for debating and presenting arguments to the people for consideration, portfolios could be offered to qualified politicians from both of the parties. That is there could be two candidates, one from each party, for each portfolio. Each portfolio would therefore be administered through compromise and not from any given party policy. This partnership of opposing politics would hopefully consist of one male and one female to give the mix a further advantage. Wherever developing policies can’t be agreed on, the people would once again have the final say. The budget for this system could well afford to upgrade the current education and social security system and deliver it to the high levels that we are talking about. This is simply one idea, but it’s about priorities and adjusting our focus. Far too much energy and money is wasted on political parties fighting one another and following their own agendas. Who loses out in these efforts? We do.
The next subject to talk about is the change in attitude within the workplace. With fewer jobs and a greater number of job seekers, it is a ‘buyer’s market’ as it were. This situation has created overtime, a lax attitude with the welfare and treatment of employees. The laws have allowed employers to abuse their rights and because of desperate employees wanting to hold on to their jobs, employers have taken advantage and eventually changed the ethics in the workplace. Today, loyalty is rare, full-time jobs are more scarce and ridiculous employment contracts and workplace agreements show the extent of desperation by the employees and the lack of respect from the employers. The result is that employees are spat out like pips, at the whim of their bloodthirsty employers. They want blood and they get it, if not from this employee, then the next.
This attitude must have a negative impact on production and cannot help develop any positive result on any level. If we are a nation that intends to remain competitive in world markets, we have to address this disintegration of workplace relationships. There must be a more rigorous enforcement of employee rights and a reassessment of current laws about employment and workplace mediation in Australia. This process will be a long one, because the current problems are tremendous and all parties are suffering. Businesses are enduring lower production, increased government paperwork and costs, and employees work long hours for little pay, with no long-term security. Something has to change, for our future and our children’s future.
The conjecture that we are without blame and not responsible for what our governments do is pure madness. Even by standing there and doing nothing, we have allowed governments, churches and institutions to act irresponsibly and in their own interests, despite us. To stand on a platform of inaction is the same as supporting the deed and we have done that well for centuries of social injustice. The reality is that as human beings and inhabitants of our planet, we are responsible for every act, good or bad, of the people we have chosen to take charge. In disagreement we have chosen to be silent rather than rock the boat, and as a consequence have found ourselves voiceless amid a sea of trouble. It is not in us all to be activists, but when everything is going wrong and we stand idly by, how can we ever expect change? The greatest and most undermining influence on our social problems is you and I, being complacent and ineffectual.
Personal responsibility is an idea that we haven’t assimilated, apart from keeping our rooms tidy and cleaning up after ourselves. We carry a responsibility for those that have come before us and those who will come after us. I believe we are collectively responsible for what happens in our world, and until we accept that joint responsibility, the world will never find peace.
Complacency and ambivalence are the traits that have delivered us to this place in which we now live, a place where governments do exactly what they want, and for the ease of response, we let them. We complain about taxes, working hours, cost of living, insurance premiums and the like, but aren’t prepared to do anything about it, stand up and be counted. Change can only occur with committed action. We the public, have a great power that we should exercise. If money is the root of all power then we, who are spending it, have the greater power collectively, not the manufacturers, producers or retailers. Together we can dominate what is produced and used by us, if only we would realise the power that we have, organise ourselves and use it to our advantage. For example, if we collectively decided to support our own industries, like orange growers or sugar growers, and force the government to disallow cheaper imports, we would save thousands of jobs. We may pay more for the products initially, but gaining more jobs, more local profit and eventually less taxes and lower interest rates will make us strong, personally and as a nation. There must be some foresight used and a dedication to supporting our own country first. If we continue to trade and buy cheaper products from third world countries despite our own industries, how can we expect to develop and support local business? We must support our labour force and be even more independent and strong as a nation?
It’s all about attitude. Government lumps huge and excessive paperwork on businesses because they believe that business is trying to cheat them out of their revenue raising. This attitude has turned many small businesses into cheats, because they cannot survive if they don’t. If the government put as much effort into incentives for small business to increase their production and profits and ultimately support them and make everyone more successful, our country would be far better off. How can a government deal with its people in such a negative way and expect growth and success.
By this attitude, the government and tax office have more than alienated themselves. They are looked on by small business, the lifeblood of our economy, as ‘those bastards that make it all but impossible to run a business.’ No-one is going to think that you don’t have to pay your dues or pay taxes. However shutting down small business over ridiculous reporting procedures and tax burdens, while corporations are paying just about nothing in tax and laughing all the way to the bank, is simply outrageous. It proves beyond doubt, that money and politics walk hand in hand.
Obviously equality does not exist in our capitalist society or the business worlds, and those with money and power, have far more to gain from the present political systems. Again this inequality shows how our present form of democracy has failed to hear the voices of the people. As the rich get richer, the gap between them and the struggling masses widens. The money has the power and the voice, and democracy has all but failed the masses that in our free-enterprise system have become like serfs to the Money Lords.
Free enterprise means opportunity for all, but when governments favour only those who have gained some positions of power, and who inadvertantly are able to support the politicians, free enterprise is in a sense no longer free. Those in power must be responsible for not only the corporations and magnates, but also the fledglings and the magnates of tomorrow. There must be a sense of equality and a fair and just administration of business activity that excludes bias and political consideration. Again, the opportunity for corruption must be taken from politicians. An even playing field must be a precondition to a positive change in government process.
It appears to me the process of thinking and responsibility has become so muddied by the complications of life that it has evolved into something different. We have as sentient beings, lost ourselves in an avalanche of denial, entrenched in our day-to-day rituals of life. The truth of our irresponsibility and apathy is so blatantly obvious because of what the world has become. We are now surrounded by the result of our attitudes and we are paying the price. Injustice, corruption, racial and religious hatred are but some of what we have allowed to dominate our earthly existence. Now, if we want to save ourselves, there will have to be radical steps to arrest such an entrenched reality.