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 oth