I was reading articles on the world-wide riots and I was shocked to see about half take a narrative which was against the protesters. No, I am not
going to dig up all of the articles, go look for them if you’re curious. I will link one of the milder articles, now I don't know this publication
and I don't care because it is not the legitimacy of the source, but instead the thoughts contained therein which finally sparked my reflection. The
one with the headline read:
"From Iran to Hong Kong, The
World is Becoming Ungovernable."
The article stated that there will be ‘police rule’ or ‘mob rule’ and that anarchy seems preferable to the protesters over a tighter regime.
All I could think of was “Duh. If they were content with the authority, they wouldn’t be protesting.”
The article didn’t delve into the legitimacy of the protester’s complaints. It did a decent job of telling why some of the protests were starting,
but overall had a tone of ‘dread’ that the masses were (and how dare they) uprising against established centralized governments and demanding (and
how dare they) change.
I’m reminded of an Orwell Quote:
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”
I am reminded of the Ivory Tower analogy, where the elites govern from a parenting standpoint of “We know what’s best for you.”. I am reminded
of how good we have it in North America and how our grievances here do not compare to the issues we see elsewhere in the world.
I am forced to reflect on thoughts of being ungovernable. It is not that I think the world is becoming ‘ungovernable’, I think it is that the
world has finally said ‘enough’. There’s a difference. Should the government be one that is person-centric, liberty-centric, for, of, and by the
people we would not be seeing these protests. We’ve lost sight of this somewhere. I am not thinking of these as ‘protests’ anymore, but
revolutions. Revolution. That is a scary word that isn’t being published in the same frequency as ‘anarchy’, ‘mob-rule’, and
“The dominant phenomenon in world politics during 2018 was a regression of liberal democracy and the spread and strengthening of right-wing
When I read that, it (to me) sounded as if the author was correlating the shift to nationalism as a cause for the protests – however we did not see
a rise in nationalism or right-wing politics in the areas in active rebellion. I think this is a false equivalency. I think we saw a shift to
right-wing nationalism as a response (in some areas) of people going ‘enough’ and trying an alternative route from the decades long march toward
globalism and complete centralization of world-wide governance. I see the shift toward nationalism as a result of the same cause quoted later in the
Helplessness. Loss of autonomy. Side-observation.
“The political situation in most of the countries where protest has erupted has in common is the helplessness of the central government. “
“Personal autonomy is the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one's life, often regardless of any particular moral
content. Political autonomy is the property of having one's decisions respected, honored, and heeded within a political context.”
The loss of autonomy may be one of the worst things a human can experience. I think it is overlooked. When studying assisted-suicide and
assisted-suicide laws we see a trend of people who have either medically lost autonomy, or people who -fear- losing autonomy. This is relevant because
people would rather DIE than even endure the FEAR of loss of autonomy (which hasn’t even occurred yet). This is not to say people want to strike it
out on their own always. People also want to be led. People enjoy following and mutual benefit, as so long as they make the choice to follow.
Autonomy. Leadership. Side-observation.
“Leadership requires two things, followers and a destination/goal/objective. Followers can only be motivated by inspiration or fear. Everything else
is not leadership but management. People hate being managed. People want to be led, where someone has a voice and tells them why they are doing what
they are doing, how they will do it, and what the result will be. When we lose sight of inspirational leadership we are led by fear, we lose
self-governance. We stop growing and start dying.” – Paraphrased from Simon Sinek.
Manipulation is a fear tactic of leadership.
Authenticity is an inspiration tactic of leadership.
Manipulation. Authenticity. Side-observation.
We see divides in the political arena when we, as individuals and groups, determine one side is manipulative and the other is authentic. When thinking
of the right/left dynamic in the United States we see one side think their camp is authentic and the other is manipulative.
Final side-observation. Belief and conviction.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Attributed to Mark Twain.
Even when presented with truth, facts, and evidence the people fooled will often reject, ignore, and excuse their previous stances. This is a typical
human response. We see people double-down in these situations. We see it in day-to-day arguments. We see it in almost every political divide in the
United States. We don’t want to be taken advantage of, we don’t want our neighbors to be taken advantage of, and we don’t want to admit when
we’ve been taken advantage of.
What a loaded word. What a horrible word. A word used by people leading by fear, afraid to lose their power structures.