If you don't engage in politics, you're the reason for this mess

Source: CBS News

I try to litter my Facebook posts with a variety of items from very many fields of life, but the one area that gets the least number of reactions is that of politics. Is it because politics turns people cold? Is it because politics brings them out of their comfort zone? Is it because they're just not interested? Or is it because people feel they don't know enough about it to want to contribute?




I think the answer to all those questions is "yes". And I truly think anyone who didn't vote or at least make some indent in the situation in their home countries should bear some if not a large part of the blame for the ills befalling it.

You go to the hospital with a broken arm and you wait 6 hours to be seen.
Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

Your children's school is overcrowded and their academic achievements are being eroded.
Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

The local streets are full of damaged roads and dangerous pavements that have caused a number of accidents.

Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

You can no longer afford to buy a house in your area because the local council has sold all the available building land to developers who are only interested in erecting top-end housing.
Don't complain if you don't engage in politics. 

Your city centre is now bereft of shops as rents have become too high for small businesses like butchers, shoe repairers and greengrocers. All that's left are estate agents, charity shops and boarded-up windows.

Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

Your local forest is being prepared for destruction to make way for a company involved in the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground there.
Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

The seaside resort you used to go to in happier times is now a run-down shell of itself, riddled with drugs and prostitution, where kids as young as 11 are engaging in petty crime and sedition.
Don't complain if you don't engage in politics. 

Your salary has stagnated and prices continue to rise to the point where certain things you took for granted are becoming difficult to afford.

Don't complain if you don't engage in politics. 

You were asked by the Prime Minister to vote in a referendum to stay or leave the EU. You have no idea what the EU does, you don't spend a few moments looking it up on the Internet and in the end you don't vote. Then you lose your job as you don't want to move to Frankfurt.

Don't complain if you don't engage in politics.

Then...

People with dangerous ideas have taken over the government of your country:

• they want to return any immigrants, no matter how well they have integrated; 
• they want benefits only for locals; 
• they discriminate against gays, minorities, women, the under-25s, the over-65s and those with physical and mental impairments; 
• they want to bring in draconian punishments for even minor offences; 
• they want to remove the country from any altruistic agreements with other nations; 
• they want to double spending on weapons and halve spending on education and healthcare; 
• they want to make military service compulsory; 
• they want to remove protections to the environment to make extraction of resources in protected areas easier; 
• they want to remove the financial safety net that has been the difference between your being able to remain living in the area where you were raised to forcing you to move hundreds of miles away;
• they want to be able to check on your online activities whenever they feel like it;
• they consider those who disagree with their ideas to be dangerous subversives and are placed under surveillance.

But you don't engage in politics, so don't complain if any of these things affect you.

There is nothing a politician likes more than indifference and ignorance of the issues. It means they can run roughshod all over you and know they can get away with it. They know they can carry out all kinds of nefarious activities, and even if they end up in the press, they have a good chance they'll get away with it.

Don't let this happen. 

Inquire. Engage. Vote. 

INQUIRE:

Look into issues that affect you and the world around you, whether it be public transport, health, nature, or the current government and its activities, and react appropriately to injustices.

ENGAGE:

Do something positive to change things for the better, whether it be writing to your local representative, taking part in a protest, delivering leaflets for your cause or writing blogs.

VOTE:

If you don't vote, you don't make your choice, so don't be surprised when things either don't change or get worse.

Want to call me a snowflake? Go ahead, creep, you're dying out anyhow.

I've been reading a lot of total BS recently. There are some real creepy people out there. So many nasty, mealy-mouthed cynics who hide behind a computer screen and an anonymous profile, spouting off any old opinionated guff that they think will offend their opponents, who are just ordinary people with middle-of-the-road ideals. But they're in for a shock. Most reasonable people I know are thick-skinned and mature, whereas some of the right-wingers I know take offence at the smallest thing, even down to being posed a relevant question that they don't like. And they call us the snowflakes!

I don't know what it is about certain conservatives and their sensitivities, but they seem to think it's OK for them to spout off insensitive and (let's be honest) immature nonsense on anything they deem a target. For example, readers on a certain right-wing online newspaper (yes, I read it - got to know what the enemy is doing!) who thought the address by Bishop Michael Curry at Harry and Meghan's wedding was either boring, manic, inappropriate, untrue or just pandering to liberal ideology. One reader wrote, "I bet his wife beats him. He might as well transition now. He's not a real man anyway". Another poster said "he used the pulpit to fulfil his own self-esteem issues. Sickening." Someone agreed, saying "Why did he think he did not have to stick to his allotted 5 minutes? Outrageous!"

Anyhow, all throughout that newspaper's website, those who disagree with their vitriolic rhetoric are truly savaged. There is rarely a sensible disagreement between readers. And most of the time it is these creepy individuals who seem to revel in spouting unfriendly remarks at those they don't like (friends of the LGBTQ community, supporters of sexual equality, gun control activists, believers in climate change, advocates of free health care, etc.). I mean, it's OK to disagree, it's OK not to like what the other one says or does, but there is no need to really be so mean and abusive.

When this is pointed out, they cry "snowflake!" Well no. Actually, it is they who fear the enemy more than the enemy fears them. That is why they attack so hard. They are slowly dwindling in numbers, while the new generation is on the rise. I have seen some remarkable things in the new generation that I think will change the political landscape, as long as the lunatics don't get us all blown up. There will be less chance of a war; there will be less nationalism and fence-building; there will be more diversity in society as we see more barriers broken down; there will be less ideology of any kind, both religious or political; but most of all, many of the world's problems will be solved by a simple question: "why the hell is this still an issue?"

Change is coming, and this current wave of nastiness from the right is their last hurrah, a little like a sea monster who refuses to die after being fatally harpooned, and chooses to attack hard while it still has some breath. Now, when I say right-wingers, I shouldn't leave out left-wingers, or should I say left-whingers, as they're also a right royal pain in the jacksie. Extreme left-wingers of the rioting, property-hating mask-wearing variety, though, will slowly die off of their own accord once the new generation establishes itself more in society. We need to take care of the biggest obstacle to peace: those on the far-right who seem to be gaining in numbers.

We need proper controls over extremist rhetoric, no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes. We need to balance freedom of speech with freedom to live without fear of being attacked, whether online or in reality, whether with words or with fists or with weapons. We need the reasonable, but silent, majority to take a stand. That will not happen unless things get out of control. So it is up to the rest of us, those who actively stand up to injustice and intolerance wherever we see it, and look it squarely in the eye. Change did not happen because people chose to ignore the problem.

Don't bring your religion into politics and count on my respect

I have been utterly astounded by the number of people whom I have come across, on Facebook, in the media, or in person, who vote for political leaders based on one point only, no matter how relevant their other beliefs are for them. This is a very blinkered and self-defeating point of view, and the biggest share of this went to Christian fundamentalists, the vast majority of whom turn out time and time again for one party in many countries that best represents their chance to implement their ideologies, no matter what else the party believes in. We saw this in Poland, which swept the conservatives to power, and now we have seen it in the US, where the Republicans have steamrollered their way to all three houses.

In 2015, the Polish elected the Law and Justice (PiS) party to power, thanks to a growing dissatisfaction in rural areas with the speed of reforms implemented by the previous incumbents, Civic Platform. Although it is understandable for people to vote out a party that has ignored them, there were many who voted for PiS based purely on their sympathies with the Roman Catholic Church in the country. Since PiS was elected, it has taken a sledgehammer to the democratic institutions that were set up to assure constitutional equilibrium in the country, has tried to totally ban in-vitro fertilisation and pregnancy terminations (unsuccessfully) and tried to gag the independent media outlets.

Many fundamentalist Catholics in Poland would never consider voting for another party, and most certainly not for Civic Platform, the party that upheld the right to abortion in a vote not long before the last election. On 3 October 2016, the proposal to ban abortion outright brought Polish women of all kinds out on strike in a huge act of peaceful civil disobedience. Two days later, many politicians had begun to distance themselves from the proposal and an amendment was being considered at the time of writing this.

The irony is, the PiS (standing for Law and Justice) party claims they helped overthrow the Communist regime along with the Catholic Church, so they feel a little like they are owed a debt of gratitude for bringing about democracy, and yet they themselves have the most undemocratic agenda since the fall of Communism in 1989. So much so, a group of intellectuals and moderates established the KOD (Committee for the Safeguarding of Democracy) as a counterweight to the encroaching reduction in freedoms taking place in the country. What they want is closer to a theocracy than a democracy, and the people are finally beginning to realise the consequences of their actions.

The moral (pardon the pun) of the story here is, do not force your ideology on others. If you don't want to be involved in, or even inadvertently condone, something that you fundamentally deplore, that is your right. But it does not mean you should force your view on others by voting for a party based on one point of obsession. This is not how democracy works. Democracy is inclusive, and one size most certainly does not fit all.

Now we turn to the other side of the Atlantic, where the Republican party has won the right to govern the United States for the next four years. There is a great paradox between people with Christian values and the parties they vote for, the vast majority siding with the Republicans.

Let us take a look at Republicans' policies and compare them to Christian values:

So, to start with, they want to keep God in the public sphere. All's well and good if you're a Christian then. But dig a little deeper and the truth is very muddy.

Christian values stipulate that one should do unto others as you would do unto yourself, including:

• giving shelter to those in need; 
• providing help to the sick and the poor; 
• not killing your fellow human. 

And yet the Republicans strongly oppose giving asylum to those who have come to the US for a better life, they wish to foist medical expenses back on the individual and advocate the reversal of the weapons restrictions introduced under Barack Obama. Upon further consultation of policy one can see the Democrats favoured these points. Who is more closely aligned to Christian doctrine in these areas? I know who I would say...

Then there are thorny issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, both favoured by the Democrats and opposed by Republicans. These issues are relevant to far fewer people than those in the preceding paragraph, and yet they are the Republicans' most fertile hunting grounds for opposition supporters. So what this suggests is that, despite the fact that Jesus himself is recorded as hanging around with socially stigmatised groups like prostitutes and ex-criminals, this is irrelevant when it comes to Christians' political behaviour in modern times.

We can ignore the hundreds of thousands of people on the poverty line who are about to have healthcare added to their list of debts; rough up and throw out any under-the-radar immigrants who are doing all the jobs Americans don't want to do rather than give them an amnesty; and risk our lives by going out onto the street hoping not to meet a testosterone-fuelled sicko with a gun licence who can kill at a second's notice. Forget that, because hold your horses, folks... love between two people is only right and proper if they're male and female, and we shouldn't allow anyone to make sexual "mistakes". This is really rather creepy, but yes, fundamentalist (emphasis on the mental, and most definitely not on the fun) Christians would rather vote based on such kneejerk matters such as that rather than on the bigger issues.

The same goes with the environment:
It is entirely feasible that the next energy secretary will be a climate change denier. Despite all the warnings, the evidence and the fact that nearly two hundred countries have signed treaties to deal with it, the US is probably about to assign this job to a sceptic. Christians are split on this issue, although time and time again the Bible tells humans to respect the Earth:
Leviticus 25:1-7 and 23; Psalm 24; Ezekiel 34:18; Matthew 6:26; 1 Timothy 4:4; the list is endless, and they all point to the need to look after our planet. So one would think, that even as a sceptic, one would at least be respectful of our Earth and Her resources. But most Republicans favour withdrawing from environmental treaties and reigniting the fossil fuel industry.

Again, this is considered a side-issue by many fundamentalist Christians, because moral behaviour is a far greater threat to them than this. And to be honest, I find it at best very distasteful, at worst profoundly hypocritical. But most of all it highlights the easily-led, knuckle-headed narrow-mindedness of people (or sheeple, considering they are a flock) that:

• they would elect a party that condoned the widespread carrying of guns yet called themselves "pro-life"; 
• would listen to their priest telling them the story of the Good Samaritan and then immediately join a demonstration against Mexicans or Muslims; 
• would read from 1 Corinthians 13, which even for a non-believer like me is the best definition of love in existence, and then go and heckle an LGBTQ event. 

I remember I once knew a Baptist minister's daughter who, despite the deep unpopularity of John Major's government in 1997 due to the in-fighting, the scandals, the remoteness of the ministers and the institutionalised corruption, declared she would vote for him because he went to church. Did she even pay attention to the news...? I doubt it.

And this is my problem with religion interfering in politics. You cannot blindly let yourself be guided by priests, bishops and cardinals on the very narrow moral issue of sex and love which, by the way, they don't even take part in (if you don't play the game, you can't expect to make up the rules), and at the same time have a clear conscience on other issues of a more urgent nature, like the rising oceans, civilian gun crime, free healthcare, proper education, housing the homeless and welcoming refugees. The Statue of Liberty itself has these words:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land."

If this is what you believe, then you are most definitely not a Republican, but you have probably been made to believe that you are by more eloquent people, or cajoled into voting for them by peer pressure, pressure from your elders or by your sheer blindness to the real issues.

I think it's only right to see that Bible verse in full. Learn from it, because it sums up not only what one might call "conventional" love, but also that for the Earth, for our neighbours, for our fellow humans, and our country:

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

So on that note, if you vote based on one narrow issue of religious doctrine, don't expect me to regard you as an example of moral fortitude, for you have done nothing more than condoned a sort of "Christian Sharia" - the imposition of your religious doctrine in our law and politics, where people of other religions need to coexist. The content of Sharia law is totally different to Christian teaching in many aspects, but I don't think anyone would agree that Christianity should be applied to our laws. This is why, even in France and ultra-Catholic Italy, religious symbols are banned from state workplaces. Religion has a place inside people as individuals - it is a very personal thing. It has no place in a one-size-fits-all public sphere.

So please, keep your own beliefs to yourself, and don't impose them on others.

The world in 2050 - part III, the scenarios

So, with the observations of the previous two articles in mind, how can the world look in 40 years?

If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.


Scenario 1: China rises and rises

With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.

Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.

The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.

Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.

Scenario II: China rises and falls

This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?

If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.

The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.

But there is an alternative.

An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.

A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.

We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.