Should we, in the age of information, ever question leadership? Are we right that once elected, we should then abdicate responsibility for our well being, leaving only history to judge those that harm us? Are events ever as they seem? Not sure that I will make much progress with this blog as it may even be too subjective and perhaps a little controversial even for me.
However, here goes:
Human psychology somehow opens us up to a great deal of suggestibility i.e. we believe what we see, we take direction from our leaders trusting their judgement. But are we right to do this, to take blind faith
For example; If we go back in time, a Silk air flight crashed in Sumatra December 1997, on discovering the black box voice recorder, the recorder had been allegedly deliberately disconnected. To the US investigators the controls were set for a high speed nose dive and therefore, it was their perception that the pilot committed suicide, killing 104 passengers and crew. What appeared to compound this theory was the pilot's personal circumstances which spoke of gambling debts and several on record disciplinary actions. However, such extreme action points to another bizarre activity that of the co-pilot. It would appear that the co-pilot sat by without question as the pilot followed this maneuver, failing to question his leader as this would be disloyal. However, Indonesian investigators opposed the US version saying the plane was at fault opening the door to lawsuits on Boeing.
Another example: Was Lehman's closed down as a result of poor governance or was it closed as a result of a Hank Paulson alleged vendetta emanating from the time of his employ at Goldman Sachs, better known as "Government Goldman". By causing the collapse of Lehman's they effectively caused the bailout of such firms as AIG to be 7 times more expensive, Merrill 2x, GM 3x, Chrysler 2x. Oddly AIG's liabilities rose 5x.
The economic recovery was indeed made worse by allowing such debt to burden the world's economy. Which, brings me back to my first question was it let go due to poor governance or was it something more sinister.
We all know the story of WMD's and the justification of the Iraq invasion. It almost speaks of desperation, desperation to go to war with Iraq. We know all was not what it seems! But did we know that by removing the Iraq regime that we would create a foe more evil, more vast than Saddam and his despots could even imagine.
Back in the day there were of course many "protagonists" such as George Galloway, who tirelessly, controversially campaigned against the war. Of course, George is no shirk when it comes to controversy. Perhaps, given the rapid expansion of IS maybe we should have heeded his, what was at that time ludicrous advice. Bear in mind, for some reason history will show that the more left of the tiller you are the better an orator you are.
However, were we strategically aware of such carnage to come, where they/we perhaps banking on this carnage as some bizarre way to create havoc in the middle East, after all the West have been held to ransom for many a year by the hypocrisy emanating from the authoritarian leaders from that region.
So should we ask not only what's real, but, should we just accept it or should we question the path we're being asked to take. For many years I have believed that everything happens for a reason, therefore the events that follow must be deemed part of the greater scheme of things. But, I also believe we make our own luck as the only ingredient that you need is work. So we can not accept action as being correct unless we at first question its impact as for sure it will always have an impact.
That aside, there is a real and growing human tragedy emerging as a result of our current inactivity. These are real people with real families who had real jobs and they have contributed to the "Globalization of their's and the world's economies". These are people that we have in some instances shared meetings with, conferences, discussed sales figures, growth forecasts, they are every bit like us.
I agree with David Cameron that these people need to be able, safe and in their own homes not in refugee camps scattered across Europe. However, David Cameron's reasons portrayed as humanitarian may only be and I suspect a perception, but what the hell it's right..
To go further; interesting that Russia will not house or re-home any refugees so perception is not only have they prevented a solution they have enacted revenge on Europe for the Ukraine stance.
We must question everything, if we are to learn anything from history, then complacency is no longer acceptable. More from the pages of Statura.co.uk