@BeatsMeWhy,
Our Turn
The world is teetering on the brink of global massacre. All of humanity is well aware of this evolving crisis and yet the state of the world leaves us feeling isolated and unable to act against a foe of such immense stature. We find ourselves locked on course for a war of such proportion that few of us will survive, and those that do will wish they had not. It would seem that the troubles of humanity are too great and too complex to be tamed, and that any hope that some hero might appear as a savior is only dashed away by the continuing lack of integrity and resolve that we see in the usual characters who dare to step forward into positions of authority and power.
There is always the continuing baggage of ideology and culture that eventually weigh down any efforts, which ultimately end in stalemates. It seems impossible to please everyone without leaving out the needs of someone who will fight to the death for their right to exist.
The one thing that the world seeks in unison, no matter who you are, is hope that the world might someday be a better place in which to live. All of our great religions build their faith on such hope. Every nation in the world, no matter its size, would benefit from such hope being realized. We hope against all odds that mass influences can once and for all set aside the politics of old, that have only led to a cycle of division and war throughout history, and instead bear the burden of a new world order that has the soul of every peaceful intention on the planet at its core. Our politicians should stand up for those who rely on their place of opportunity and walk with others like themselves with similar opportunity, and set into motion a government for the world which will address the concerns and desires of all nations and peoples in one simultaneously aggressive effort to turn history on its axis; to set the world on a different path than this one we have traveled these thousands of years that have led to this brink of annihilation.
Care what your neighbor thinks, and listen to what he has to say. Act with compassion and understanding, considering the needs of all diversities. Forget wealth and superiority, and look forward to prosperity for all, instead of the few. Before we can ever find a home for ourselves free from needless suffering we will first have to consider the needs of our neighbor, for if they go ignored now, we will only face them later one way or another. We each have our own individually unique cultures and lifestyles. Many others will not choose to live as we do. Many will not want to live with us, or be exposed to our way of life at all. Humanity is a vast diversity of differences, many which are not compatible with another. This is natural fact.
It is a ridiculous delusion to think that the world will ever live together in harmony and accord. It will not happen. But this does not mean that we cannot live in tolerance and recognition of each others' rights, if our living conditions are arranged in such a way that we are not adversely affected by our neighbors choices of lifestyle, or forced to give up our own. Soundproof walls between duplex complexes is a perfect example of what I mean here. Why can't we accomplish such an environment of tolerance through some sort of a segregation that will satisfy everyone's lifestyle and culture. Not a segregation that divides humanity, but one that makes living together more accommodating for all, acknowledging our differences as natural, instead of unnatural. Treat the global problem the same way that you would a communal problem. Investigate the various issues within a community, and then address those concerns by reorganizing and restructuring the community in whatever way necessary to solve those concerns for all sides involved.
It would be a vast effort, and the participants would have to agree that compromises will have to be made. It will be an extreme measure, but it is not a hopeless ideal. The world is already, and always has been, segregated in such a way. The problems arise when these different factions clash over proximity, when tolerance is ended by invasion or corruption for various reasons. Expecting practitioners of extremely differing ideologies to be cohabitable with each other is not a solution of any permanence. Finding a way to keep them from intruding and imposing on each other is a solution, as long as it is enforced unbiasedly, so that troublemakers seeking personal benefit at everyone else's expense cannot create chaos where it otherwise wouldn't be.
An example of such technique, however flawed, would be the neutral zone between North and South Korea. Is it possible for the various factions of the world to cooperatively work toward determining zones between conflicting areas that can be aggressively managed by a world coalition in such a way that land disputes and religious or ideological disputes can be subdued by appeasing both sides? It has been tried, but always without actually settling the dispute, which only resulted in terrorism as a last straw by oppressed peoples.
Surely finding a means of bringing peace to a troubled area, saving countless lives as well as avoiding the destruction of treasured real estate, is a better situation than its opposite? War might achieve power for the victor, but never without continuing rebellion, and the victory is always temporary, for there is always another power going to replace it. War has never been a solution. At best it reaches a temporary stalemate for one side. No matter how powerful an army, it can never defeat the spirit of its enemy, and the security and well being of the victor's families will always be at risk of attack by the remnant of that enemy. Terrorist attacks are as much a continuation of a war as the main attack. War is not, has never, and never will be, a solution. Peace will never be the result of war. The two are complete opposites.
So, knowing war is not an option, what choices do we have to resolve our differences? The world cannot act as one unless it actively takes measures as one, and devises a system of establishing safe zones between areas of dispute that can be managed and protected by an unbiased force, whose sole responsibility is to enforce peace within that zone, and to separate the opposing cultures from imposing on each other. Zones that can be agreed upon by all factions involved, for the priority of preserving both life and treasure. An agreement that can be founded under the security of knowing that the enforcement and protection of such zones is governed by a force that is not biased to any ideology, and not able to be corrupted by any greed or corruption.
If disputing factions of the world could place trust in such an enforcement, and avoid the destruction of war, peace would soon follow on a worldwide scale. No nation would really want to suffer the crippling results of war when it might somehow be avoided. Holy sites could be visited by opposing factions, both trusting in the enforcement of their treasure's protection and welfare. People would be able to travel from one land to another without fear because they would know that the different cultures of these lands would have no reason to war with each other. Disputes would be settled peacefully by one unbiased government with the intention only to avoid war by being certain to appease both sides satisfactorily. And, in return, each faction will come to the mediation with the same desire to compromise for the goal of peace and prosperity instead of war and destruction, leading to poverty. Be aware however that we would not be here to appease or satisfy the desires of the bullies and greedy.
Every schoolyard need attentive and effective monitoring or else the bullies will rule. Every competition needs a referee to enforce the rules without any intention of pandering to either side. And social conflict, at its global extreme, now more than ever before, requires a global referee. It is the one and only solution to the planetary schoolyard of conflicting parties and bullies.
Someone must step in and use their body as a means to keep them from escalating to extremity. And any one of us would be compelled to do the same when we are faced with two people engaged in such combat that they become fatally dangerous to each other. We would intervene and attempt to ease the conflict by separating them from each other. This world needs its wise adults to go into the playground, remove the bullies, and take control of the unruly students. But where do we find these referees, and how do we bring them from around the world while avoiding the clash of cultures? We tried this in a fashion with the United Nations and it was made a mockery. Why? What happened?
The Un, with all of its good intentions, was simply a concentration and exaggeration of the same old diplomacy and politics that have always ruled our planet. There were as many extremists and despots sitting in the council as there were pacifists and capitalists. This is not the type of governmental system we are seeking here, and trying to define and describe. The UN was a pitbull with its teeth pulled. Sanctions and expecting diplomacy between nations that despise each other is foolhardy. How can you possibly lay down rules and expect them to be followed by a party that knows from the start that there will be be no ultimate enforcement of those rules? And starving someone might temper their energy but it only strengthens their resolve and fires their anger.
No! The Un was a pipe dream of diplomats believing in diplomacy. Unfortunately the world is not diplomatic at all.
The world is in reality filled with mothers and fathers, caring for their loved ones, and having to do so in an environment where a tiny percentage of the population of the planet will try to use force and riches to enslave them for their own greedy purposes. And because this tiny percentage is almost always corrupt and immoral it holds the upper hand because it does not care who it must trample to reach their goals, using the good-heartedness of the masses as a weapon against them. They will use their own children as human shields, take advantage of our distaste for torture, and use acts of terror against civilians to hold power. In many cases it is the religious belief of a people which causes them to war against another people in the name of their god or ideology, attempting to impose their beliefs on others who may be in the way of those beliefs somehow.
Whether it is for one's own greedy goals, or one's own personal philosophies, should humanity tolerate intolerance and greed when it escalates to slavery, war and genocide, involving the abuse of innocent bystanders?
I say that no human, sharing this planet with every other human born here, has the right to dictate how or where another human should live on this planet, unless it is for the overall welfare of the entire population of the planet, humanity as a whole. Than the priority stands clear. We cannot sacrifice our planet and humanity for the sake of individual rights. We do not have the right to adversely impose ourselves on others, but we doi have an obligation to humanity to survive as a species.
We all know our differences. They are as obvious as skin color. And we all discover as we mature, that sharing is never easy, and always requires compromise and tolerance. Greed emerges its ugly head when one person expects more than someone else has at that other persons expense. When there are 12 eggs available between two people and one person expects to have eight of them, knowing the other will only have four, that is greed. Does it matter if one person is willing to work harder to get more of the share, or that one person did not do their share of the work? Should the amount divided be according to how much effort one is willing to put out to acquire the goods? This is the basic root of capitalism is it not, and it may be something to consider when we are talking about the sharing of luxuries and excesses, but not when we are talking about the basic necessities of life, or a person's right to live in their own homeland with their ancestors. This is where capitalism fails utterly.
No ideology, greed or capitalistic venture has the right to gain momentum at the expense of leaving poverty and war in its wake, regardless of how hard it strives to get ahead of everyone else. You cannot have a nation without a population to make it function, and a few rich people do not make a nation and can not even survive without the working class. How can humanity tolerate one man living lavishly in a a castle surrounded by a starving population that provides him with all of his luxury in the first place. Without the farmers, bricklayers, bakers, carpenters, etc. etc., the rich man would not be able to live as he does.
The first bankers came to the people begging for patronage of their entrepreneurial idea. And now, after making themselves rich by manipulating us, they will take our home from us and leave us in the street without batting an eyelash. All in the name of profit. The same with insurance vendors. They sought after our business and then stab us in the backs through loopholes at every chance they get. They spend more money on trying to avoid settling with us than they ever pay out in claims. And just to add to the hypocrisy the government steps in and allows them to take advantage of mandatory laws that require us to do business with them under penalty of law, for things like vehicle and property insurance. And where can one get a mortgage, or even a job anymore, without having a bank account and life insurance? And yet this scenario takes place in many similar forms all around the planet, where the rich and powerful few live off the backs of the poorer majority.
I am not promoting the elimination altogether of the opportunity for people to acquire wealth and luxury. I am suggesting that we eliminate the elements that allow for greed to acquire these things while doing harm in the process. Look what a global affect the greedy heads of corporate America had on the world economy as they bailed out of their positions when the people they scammed out of their money ran out of money. I am simply talking about narrowing the extremes. There should not be an extreme right or extreme left of anything in a world of differences. This doesn't mean that everything has to meet in the middle, it just means that cooperation and compromise must be constantly mediated between two opposing factors so that neither extreme can impose adversely on the other without consequence. There is no way that the executive rich of this world should have such power as to be able to topple the economy of the entire planet by making bad decisions.
Take, for example, the bicyclist driving on the busy city streets.In most cities they are considered vehicles and expected to adhere to the rules of the road like any other vehicle. And yet, most cyclists ride their bikes in total disregard for the rules of the road because, in most cases, they are not enforced, and their negligence, disobedience and disconcern for the traffic is tolerated. Therefore you have the cyclist carelessly driving up on the inside of a line of traffic waiting at a traffic light, and placing their bikes in front of that line of cars, and then selfishly expecting the traffic to follow them the rest of the way up the road at bicycle speed.
This is the mindset of that small percentage of the population of our planet, who selfishly walk past the masses and place themselves in position at the head of the pack, while the rest must tread along behind them. From their positions of luxury they do not look back to see that long lineup behind them.
Whether that person worked hard to acquire his bicycle or not, an inconsiderate position that disregards the state of everyone else in his environment is the attitude that has the world in the state that it is. No one man should control one tenth of the worlds wealth, while 80 percent of the world lives below poverty level.
For people to have millions of dollars more than they could ever personally spend in one lifetime is nothing less than shameless greed, and is totally inappropriate in a world where he is one extreme and the other is so poor it is starving to death in the street. Especially when the starving outnumber the rich elite by the billions, and are the ones that keep the rich provided with their luxuries in the first place. A multibillionaire that gives one million dollars to charity is like a person that makes fifty thousand a year giving ten cents to charity. Those ratios may be off a bit but you get the gist of my intent.
I am not saying that the rich are obligated to solve the world's problems, but I am suggesting that they are a considerable part of the world's problem. We may not owe our neighbor next door anything but simple courtesy, but we do owe humanity as a whole our utmost consideration and concern. It is a sad thing to acknowledge that far too often man must be somehow forcibly compelled to actually consider how his actions may affect someone else. Without a reason to be considerate we are often inconsiderate, and this is precisely why that small percentage is able to carelessly get ahead of the traffic and impede its progress. The inconsideracy of a very small few is impeding the progress of humanity.
Let's face it, we have all done it. Littered in the park because we didn't see any rangers watching. Tossed our cigarette out the car window into the dry grass on the roadside. Impeded traffic during the rush period with our bikes. Got on a crowded bus with a hot coffee in our hands. And yet, if there had been a police car behind you, that cigarette would have gone into the ashtray, and the forest fire would not have burned all of those homes. Had the bus driver insisted you leave the coffee behind, that other passenger would never have been severely scalded.
Had there been a police officer directing traffic at the lights, the cyclist would not have snuck up and placed himself ahead of the traffic so callously.
The world needs to have courteous consideration enforced. The world needs to be incited into courtesy. The world needs a reason to have to walk to the garbage can with their trash, instead of tossing it anywhere. We need to be forced into peace.
But who will set the rules? Where will this body of enforcement come from? How can such a grand gesture ever be implemented?
Our politicians and world leaders are just another part of the same problem. We cannot look to them. Most of the rich are too concerned with their riches, living a lifestyle that is surreal to the majority of the planet. We cannot expect them to give up everything for us.
Is it possible? Is it too much to expect?
We are the vast majority! Those who are creating these problems are a tiny minority. This is very attainable. It will simply take a movement of influential people of opportunity. If people of opportunity would exercise their options, what I propose here could easily be realized in this generation. People are always ready to follow a leader that impresses them. People are always looking for a better life, and their eyes and ears are usually accepting those who bear glad tidings. Many religions prophesy messiahs and saviors. I do not argue those possibilities. But I would say with more confidence that these messiahs are more of an idea than a person, ideologies of hope. And an idea's fruition and culmination is just as possible as its origin. It just requires the right components coming together and moving forward in a particular way. Should someone of some notoriety or prominence step up to bat, the hope grows a little more. And should one successful step lead to another through communication and cooperation those baby steps can culminate in a march of progress.
Will humanity ever succeed in finding peace? I believe it is closer than we realize. I believe that this planet will soon succeed in overcoming that small percentage of greed that has kept us from our dreams, and recently almost caused the bankruptcy of the entire planet's economy. I believe that the government that will finally fall into place to lead the world into this new era will consist of a coming together of global influences with one common goal of world peace, supported by a vast majority of people of every race and culture of like mind, and enabled by technological opportunities never before offered for such an accomplishment. Instant communication and a mass following across the planet of people who are determined to put an end to war, poverty, tyranny and oppression will be the final blow to injustice and inequity forever. Our turn is coming is at hand.
What the catalyst of this turnaround will be is probably not going to be something that we would wish upon ourselves, but will likely be the only thing that will fuel the massive protest which will be necessary to begin this movement.
