Boston - It is the System not always the Individual.

Some of my readers have asked me about the appalling acts that marred the recent Boston Marathon. While all the facts are still to be discovered a few broad aspects can be discussed without compromising anything.

Causing unnecessary death, injustice, cruelty, torture and general unkindness is wrong, plain and simply wrong. Even though such events appear to be part of the human condition – they need not be so. When a system is in place that encourages – or at least does not discourage – authoritarian attitudes and unquestioned obedience then most people, because we are social animals, will conform to whatever the system requires. There is a great deal of social research which reveals that when the situation people may find themselves in is such that it corrodes human values and creates a “them or us” or a “are you with us or against us” attitude then normal well-adjusted people will be persuaded to perform unspeakable acts on their fellow beings and animals. In certain situations, where the system demands it, usually “normal” people will submit to the “social convention” applicable at that time and in that particular situational environment – no matter what the “social convention” entails.

This is not to say there are no “bad people”, of course there are, but more often than not it is the situation that people find themselves in – the system – that alters behaviour. I am not excusing the killing or cruelty perpetrated by individuals who are deviant in this regard – those who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering – such people may be considered sociopaths or psychopaths. There are definitely such people. Not many, fortunately, but a few. It is, however, generally the system, the situation, that is the real culprit.

In this instance I am talking about normal people in abnormal situations. What determines “normal” is a moot point and an “abnormal situation” is generally an entirely personal experience – what is abnormal to me may not be for you.   This applies to all “parties” – to those in a particular situation forced to submit to authority and those who because of the situation are “expected” to act in an authoritative manner. This also depends on how long the “abnormal situation” lasts and how long any “adjustment” may take.

Think of the situations and the systems that prevailed in the precincts of the financial institutions on Wall Street in 2008 and the catastrophe that resulted; think of the situations and the systems that prevailed in children’s institutions run by the Catholic Church; think of the situations and systems created by the Nazis and the subsequent Jewish “holocaust”; think of the mishmash of perverted religious ideals and politics that is “taught” in some Islamic madrasa (schools); think of the strict Biblical interpretations and “creationist” concepts taught in some American schools; think of the situation and system that resulted in the appalling treatment inflicted on the inmates of Abu-Ghraib prison in Bagdad; think of the situations and the systems that encouraged the illegal practice of  “rendition” – the CIA sending prisoners to countries that allow torture; think of the situations and systems that allowed the cruelty inflicted upon animals in abattoirs that has been captured on video in Australia, the Middle East and other countries; think of the situations and desperate conditions forced on “boat people” or so-called “queue jumpers” by Australian politicians who seem to be in competition to see who can inflict the harshest “punishment” for daring to try and reach Australia (the “lucky country”) by any means possible.

In these cases, without exception, the rhetoric, the propaganda, the “spin” promotes the notion that what is being said is “normal” (Jews are evil and all Muslims are extremists) and that any and all alternative views or interpretations are radical, wrong and “abnormal” (if you are not with us you are against us!). What is deliberately distorted and played upon in these situations is that we, that is all human beings, are “social animals” and need relationships. We all have an instinctive desire to be “included”; if we are included we are socially “rewarded” by the approval of those we are now included with; we feel “safe” because responsibility for our actions is now shared with others and is therefore no longer considered to be our individual responsibility – “I did nothing wrong. I was only obeying orders. I was just doing what I was told”. Sound familiar?

Such systems, such conditions, such environments subvert humanity, compassion and logical reasoning. They subvert the concept of “conscience”. They subvert the inclusive basis of all religions; they subvert the fact that all human beings are related by our very humanity. They subvert the fact that we are human and that our relatedness is conditional upon the creative or productive aspects of this relatedness - love. The “faculty” to love fulfils the vital condition of enabling us to retain our individual freedom while, at the same time, unites us with our fellow beings. Anything else is a travesty; anything else – which causes pain, anguish or diminishes another - is plain and simply wrong.

This is why, I suggest, the origins of the warped thinking that led to the recent appalling actions in Boston lie in the system, in the environment, in the conditions that the perpetrators – the two young men – grew up with or immersed themselves in while living in the USA. Also never forget the corrosive effect that injustice – actual or perceived – has on individuals. Racism, exclusion, bullying, derisive comments about a person’s apparent poverty or appearance or accent or lack of English language skills all have a deep and lasting effect on the victims and are not only unkind but are also unjust. People remember injustice long after the cause has (apparently) been resolved.

Never forget the “law” of cause and effect, of unintended consequences which will always apply in any situation. This is why, as has been stressed many times in these posts, there is no viable alternative to treating others the way you would like to be treated – being ethical at all times.

I will end with a quote from a speech by Frederick Douglas, on 24^th anniversary of emancipation, Washington, DC 1886:

“ Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails and where one class is made to feel society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”

It is always the system. 

Think about it.

WMD – not again please!

It is now alleged that the Syrian regime has used, or is using, poison gas (a Weapon of Mass Destruction) in the civil war raging in that unfortunate country. If this new allegation is based on the same level of intelligence gathering methods used for the previous (Iraqi) WMD claims I would not base too much faith in the conclusions!

The last WMD claims led to the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent ongoing catastrophe in that country. The presence of foreign “infidels” on Iraqi soil fanned the flames of anti-Americanism that was already present in that country and the Middle East generally. Syria will end up just the same.

While I believe that Bashar al-Assad is just as bad as his father was, this does not mean that I agree “the West” should interfere in the internal goings on in Syria. We are not (at least I am not) a Syrian or someone of Middle East extraction so I cannot know; I cannot feel; I cannot therefore have the understanding and the empathy for a country or a people that a Syrian would have. Nor, might I add, is the CIA or the American Defence Department Syrian in any shape or form.

When someone (or a country) interferes in the affairs of another the result of such interference can NEVER be foretold. When someone (or a country) interferes in the affairs of another based on faulty intelligence the problem will just be compounded. The American “neo-cons” were convinced that “the Iraqis” would be grateful for the invasion of that country and immediately adopt a “democratic” way of life. How wrong they were!

So now how to judge the accuracy and veracity of the current claims of the deployment of poison gas in Syria? I leave it up to you, dear reader, to make your own determination. But in my book the Syrians are no fools and can find solutions to their own problems – the CIA and other “do gooders” have no right to interfere. They will just make matters worse just as they did in South America; just as they did in Vietnam; just as they did in Iran; just as they did in Iraq; just as they are doing in Afghanistan.

Would the Americans like it if someone (or a country) tried interfere in the internal affairs of the USA. In the 9/11 twin tower attacks they did! And what was the American response? And what are the world-wide consequences of that response?

Is there a greater level of peace than there was before?

For the Love of God leave well alone!

Economists – a gloomy bunch

With the events of 2008 (the GFC) still reasonably fresh in our minds and the continuing demands by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for indebted countries to  reduce debt levels it is interesting to learn that IMF demands might have been based on faulty research. The latest information to hand seems to indicate that the “tipping point” of a country’s debt at 90% of GDP leading to negative growth is wrong. There may actually be a low level of economic growth at this figure – about 2% positive growth.

Also isn’t it counterintuitive to demand that Greece, Portugal and other “loser” countries introduce stringent cuts to Government budgets, increase taxation and reduce peoples wages and then to “expect” economic growth and early debt repayment? I mean, really, with lower wages Government income is reduced (even with increased taxation) and with lower income how can debt be repaid and with lower wages how can people afford to buy anything other than necessities?

So how can “growth” occur?

Henry Ford was about right when he said that people should be paid enough to buy what they make.

No choice.

Why is choice – in a democracy like Australia – being eroded by Capitalism (with a big “C”)? It is a sad fact that the two giants of Australian supermarkets – Woolworths and Coles - are working to reduce the range of products that we customers can buy. They are trying to force us into buying their “home” or in-house brands. Certainly “home” brand prices appear cheaper than those of other suppliers (I will admit to purchasing some “home” branded products because of their price) – but at what cost to us?

The range of alternative products on the shelves of these two supermarkets is certainly less than it was some years ago – some branded products are no longer stocked. And the “home” branded products are often given pride of place.

My concern is that once I/we are conditioned into buying on price only we will be left with nothing but the “home” branded products. Now with most “home” branded products – certainly when it comes to food – the small print states that it is “Produced in - New Zealand or the Netherlands or (occasionally) Australia - from local and imported products”.

I have learned that this phrase “from local and imported products” means that “imported” is a euphemism for “China” and local most probably refers to the cardboard packaging. But what goes into the products we get from China?

Never having been to China I am reliant on what the media chooses to report and what, carefully controlled, snippets of information are allowed out of China by the censors. This is not very much but I know that China is neither a democracy nor a truly Communist country. In fact I would say that a country of 1.2 billion people is virtually ungovernable – certainly not from a central “office”. Furthermore the Chinese legal system is somewhat problematical and it is doubtful that “justice is seen to be done” in a conventional (Westminster) sense.

It is no secret that corruption is endemic and this together with the huge disparity of income between the very rich and desperately poor would suggest that social unrest is bubbling away beneath the smooth surface the Chinese authorities like to portray.

This leads me to question the standard of product that we (Australia) import from China. There is heavily polluted water – a recent audit indicates that 28 000 (Yes! Twenty-eight thousand) rivers and waterways have “disappeared” in China due mainly to poor water management!! Much of the water that remains is of such poor quality that it is alleged to be unsuitable for drinking and fishing is discouraged. You will recall that, recently, about 15000 dead pigs were found floating in a major river!

Is this the water being used to irrigate the vegetables that Australia imports?

Then there are continuing reports of contaminated infant foods and milk powders. Furthermore it is known that indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal welfare is one reason we are seeing a rise in antibiotic resistant strains of previously controllable diseases. What are the controls the Chinese have in place to prevent any such abuse of antibiotic use just because they are available and cheap? No one knows. The same applies to pesticides – are they using banned carcinogenic products because they are available and cheap? No one knows.

What is the quality of the food that Coles and Woolworths are importing and “forcing” us to purchase their "home" brands because they undercut the prices of other products and thus drive out competition?

They won’t tell and the Chinese Government won’t say!

I will add that if Coles and Woolworths are just trying to please their shareholders with high share prices and increased dividends at the consumers cost then they forget that shareholders are also consumers!! 

There is an old saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too!!!

Man and God.

Oh boy!! This is an intensely personal and a highly emotive issue but it needs to be talked about – openly. So here goes!!

First up let me state, clearly, that I am not a follower of any particular religion or faith. Nominally an Anglican or Church of England – I was baptised as one – there are beliefs held by Buddhism and Sufism that I find satisfying and meaningful, just as I enjoy some of the hymns associated with the English Church and I find the the ideas and language of the King James Bible quite wonderful. Likewise certain aspects of the Kabbalah (an ancient Jewish spiritual tradition) and the Hindu beliefs about life and spirituality I also find comforting. So I suppose I could be called an “all sorts” – and possibly be despised as such, even condemned by some for blasphemy and as an apostate.

No matter! What I have found is that all these different forms of belief have one goal – to direct a follower to God, no matter what God is called; God, Allah, Krishna, Brahma, Yahweh, the Absolute – there is only One God. So I really don’t believe it matters much HOW you believe as long as you DO believe. And how you believe is your personal choice, once you have reached an age when you can reflect, reason and choose accordingly.

What got me onto all this are three things: firstly, the recent resignation or abdication of the (now former) Pope – Benedict XVI. Secondly, the long running scandal – affecting ALL religions – relating to the physical and sexual abuse, by those entrusted with their welfare, of children and women. Thirdly, the apparent secularisation of the Western countries (by this I mean the more developed countries of the world) and the corollary of falling church attendances.  

Now, I am not claiming that these three are directly linked in any way, it is just that the three go together. I’ll explain why:-

Trust is one of the most fragile of human feelings. And trust is a feeling – not an emotion – it is a gut feeling. Trust usually takes a long time to develop but can be lost in a split second. In the current environment how can trust be engendered when government officials, lawyers, accountants and clergy have been known to abuse their positions for personal gain? How can trust be engendered or maintained particularly when the clergy, imams, rabbis, priests – call them what you will – of any religious order abuse the very people they have been entrusted to protect, to educate and to lead on a spiritual journey to God?

Of a certainty only a minority of clergy are abusers – there are many very fine men and women helping many people. But I wonder if it is the system, the environment, that is the baleful influence and not as the saying goes, “that one bad apple can spoil the barrel” but the “barrel” itself that is bad?

When people, particularly young people place themselves in the hands of someone they view as “superior”; someone who is supposed to be a spiritual and life  “guide”; someone who directs them on a weekly basis; someone who influences that least understood and most delicate of human attributes – spirituality, then almost unlimited “power” is given to that guide. Unconsciously this transference of “power” to influence and control a person’s thoughts and actions may damage both.

 When a priest, imam or rabbi (as an example) is given this influence over a young person (for example), there is now scope for, shall we say, “ungodly” activities. When young men are influenced to blow themselves up and kill as many “unbelievers” (Christian westerners) as they can; when strict adherence to the letter of the Bible, Koran or Torah is demanded as a requirement to “belong” in a particular society or group; when “believers” are controlled to the extent that they are discouraged from socialising with those not of their “faith” then something is out of kilter. When Christians and Muslims kill Jews; when Jews isolate Muslims from their land and Holy places; when Muslims burn Christian churches; when Christians burn Mosques; when Hindus burn the places of worship of both Muslims and Christians; when Christians categorize all Muslims as potential terrorists; when Muslims consider all non-Muslims as unacceptable to God and legitimate targets for punishment (a jihad or “holy” war); when women are considered secondary citizens and denied basic human rights (by ALL religions); when people are harmed in any way and when there is injustice in any form, a crime is committed and trust is broken.

Why then should anyone believe in the “sanctity” of any particular faith or religious cause again?

Certainly with the Christian Churches, and the Catholic Church is the biggest one, I believe that the “system” is corrupt and broken. It is the current, broken, system that encourages priestly influence and authority over parishioners for money and “power” – the Catholic Church is an immensely powerful and wealthy organization.

The religious people involved in these crimes are showing themselves as diminished beings unworthy of trust. Knowledge of any abuse spreads like effluent through a community and many people, naturally, turn away from any such toxic influences lest they become poisoned. Church attendances therefore fall.

There is little sign of  humility and adherence to the commandments that Jesus gave to his followers (King James Bible - Matthew 22.37 and 39):

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and,

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.

There are not many clearer directions that this, are there? So why don’t Christians churches follow them?

Remember Jesus also said (King James Bible, Matthew 6.21):

"For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also".