|
HOME
HUMOUR
CANCER
ARCHIVE
E-MAIL |
THE HIGH COST OF DELUSIONS
By John J. Moelaert
Have you ever wondered what the primary cause is of all the misery
in the world? Perhaps you think it is ignorance, greed or deception.
Those are certainly contributing factors, but I believe the primary
cause of the deplorable state of the world is--and always has
been--the imposition of the will and belief system of one group
on that of others. The truth of this hypothesis is easily verified:
just consider how religion and the economy operate through self-righteousness
and self-interest.
I have been actively involved in social and environmental issues
since my teens, more than half a century ago. My first letter
to the editor was entitled Si vis pacem, para pacem (If you want
peace, prepare for peace). A logical topic for a teenager who
had survived the horrors of the Second World War. In the mid-fifties
I proposed the formation of an international peacekeeping force
the members of which were to be provided on a proportionate basis
by nations of the UN and controlled by the General Assembly.
Canada's former Prime Minister Lester Pearson made a similar
proposal to the UN a few years later and won the Nobel Peace
Prize for it. My subsequent active involvements covered many
social and environmental issues, including human rights (Amnesty
International), conservation (founder of the Wildlife Park Society
of BC), keeping uranium mines out of BC (Canadian Coalition for
Nuclear Responsibility and Greenpeace), humanitarian aid for
Nicaragua (Tools for Peace), the anti-nuclear movement, various
peace organizations, the politics of cancer and so on.
I mention this only for one reason: to demonstrate that my views
and experience are based on a broad spectrum of issues. Looking
back on some fifty years of social and environmental activism
I now realize that many of my assumptions--especially in my 'early
days' --were far more idealistic than realistic.
My biggest misconception was the belief that the reason for so
many social ills and environmental disasters was a lack of information
that allowed the perpetrators of these problems to mislead the
public. "If people only knew what is going on and why, they
will become an unstoppable force for remedial change," I
thought. But then as now a hockey game draws thousands more people
than a well-informed speaker, even a dynamic one like Ralph Nader
or Noam Chomsky. The main motivating forces in this world are
not social justice and conservation, but money and sex.
REALITY DENIAL
All the necessary information to reduce cancer rates, reverse
global warming, feed the hungry and free the oppressed is available
RIGHT NOW, but instead of improvements in these areas, the situation
is getting worse every day. The gap between the poor and rich
is rapidly widening through most of the world. Even in the US,
the richest country of the world, this is apparent: the US now
has more than a million millionaires and some 70 billionaires,
while some 40 million Americans have no medical insurance, some
two million are in prison and 18 million American children are
suffering from malnutrition. At the same time energy waste continues
to grow as gas-guzzling cars (SUV's, for example) are more popular
than ever, thus increasing both fuel consumption and massive
pollution. Yet, the US which on a per capita basis uses more
oil and produces more greenhouse gases than any other nation
on earth refuses to sign the Kyoto accord, because according
to Bush and Co. reducing pollution would have a negative impact
on the economy. Not a word about the devastating economic impact
of global warming such as droughts, floods, new diseases etc.
Not surprisingly I have yet to meet one person who is intelligent,
well-informed AND an optimist about the future of the human race.
Most people don't even want to think--let alone talk--about the
worsening global situation: they just behave as though it is
business as usual instead of an accelerating journey to economic
collapse and environmental devastation. People in the industrialized
world build bigger homes, drive more cars and buy expensive toys.
For example huge recreation vehicles that contain everything,
including the kitchen sink! Who cares that they may get only
seven or eight miles to the gallon--surely not the owners. Who
cares that the fuel consumption for a week could keep a water
pump in an African or Asian village running for a year? Not the
RV salesmen. That is freedom without responsibility, like tourists
fattening themselves on a cruise ship whose destination often
is the same as its port of departure or monster trucks flattening
rows of cars to entertain brain-dead attendees. The most convincing
evidence that people practise reality-denial and have successfully
conned themselves into believing that overall things are OK is
that they continue to bring children into this world, thereby
subjecting their offspring to a life of intensifying misery.
It is worth noting that the two most important jobs in the world
(parent and politician) require no proof of competence. To drive
a car or to go fishing you need a license, but to produce children
you only need two opposite sets of functioning genitals and a
bit of aerobics. Most children are the product of sexual and
social irresponsibility encouraged by society in the interest
of consumerism and by religions to increase their numbers. To
make it as a politician all you need is the gift of the gab to
tell people what they want to hear and lots of money to cover
your campaign.
ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE
People are aware of the critical problems the human race
faces today, but most of them just don't care enough to become
actively involved in them. Bill Maher, who was fired for speaking
candidly about the 911 attacks on the US on his program Politically
Incorrect estimates that at best 14 per cent of Americans are
adequately informed and capable of seeing through most of the
hype produced by politicians, corporations and mainstream news
media.
Most people are conned into believing that the CEO's at Enron
and Worldcom, who enriched themselves at the expense of thousands
of shareholders, are just a few rotten apples in an otherwise
fair and well-functioning economic system. The reality, however,
is that these corporate crimes are just symptoms of a rotten
economic process that is based on waste and driven by greed and
deception.
The wheelers and dealers in the world of big business are parasites
whose profits are at the expense of those they exploit, e.g.
tin miners in Bolivia or farm workers in Mexico or child laborers
in Asia or gullible investors anywhere. In most cases profits
are made at the expense of losers. Simplified look at it this
way: see a country's total money supply as a big pie and the
public as members of a family. If one or more of those members
take(s) a bigger slice of the pie than an equal portion, the
rest end up with less than an equal share. Consider the reality
that in the same country, e.g. the US, some CEO's get millions
of dollars in income, while others go through dumpsters to find
something of value and you'll understand the gross injustice
of the so-called free market system. While getting a multi-million
annual income is one thing, no one can earn five, ten million
dollars a year with bonuses and other economic goodies on top
of that, because NO ONE is worth that.
The daily dealings at stock exchanges are a disgusting display
of greed and deception in action. The key to success in the business
world is to do as little as possible for maximum gain. The main
motivating force in any corporation is not the public good, but
the bottom line, i.e. profits. If someone sells a commodity for
twice the amount he paid for it, he has added 100 per cent to
the cost and nothing to the value of that commodity. Advertising
makes businesses sound like philanthropic institutions. They
give the impression they provide products and services to help
the consumers, but at best that is a side-benefit. If something
doesn't make money it is discontinued.. If it can be made profitable
by reducing costs, chances are employees --always regarded as
dispensable-- are laid off.
If companies are caught destroying the environment or endangering
public health, corporations use
The ten commandments of corporate fudging:
1. DENY a problem exists.
2. MINIMIZE the risks and emphasize the benefits. Try to confuse
the public with terms such as "acceptable levels" and
"genetic susceptibility."
3. DISTRACT public attention by focussing on other issues.
4. STALL for time by demanding more studies (an old ploy of
the tobacco industry).
5. JUSTIFY a problem by explaining that everything in life
involves risks including going to bed (American Cancer Society
VP Arthur I. Holleb, MD actually said this in 1976 to justify
mammograms).
6. CONCEAL damaging information (both industry and government
have kept the public in the dark about critical health risks,
e.g. the dangers of radioactivity).
7. BLAME the victim. For example, cancer isn't caused by industry,
but by one's genes. The problem isn't the substance: it is a
person's susceptibility (A former tactic of the asbestos industry).
8. RETALIATE with your own research to "prove" outside
research is wrong in claiming a product is harmful to public
health or the environment.
9. UNDERMINE proposed new laws by persuading politicians to
weaken them.
10. THREATEN to relocate a plant elsewhere and lay off all
employees if regulations are not softened. Whatever you can't
produce and sell at home, produce and sell abroad.
If a serious problem can no longer be denied, corporations often
try to take part of the credit for turning things around with
major public relations campaigns showing how hard they work to
make this a better world (remember the cleanup pictures following
the Exxon Valdez oil disaster or Dow Chemicals' TV commercials
showing how the company makes good things happen--after the breast
implants fiasco?).
LEGALIZED ROBBERY
In our society it is illegal to rob a bank, but it is not illegal
for a bank to rob you. For example, banks may pay less than one
per cent interest on your savings account and charge you 27 per
cent on your credit card balance! Worse, say you owe $1,500 on
your credit card and you pay $1,400, banks will charge you interest
not on the balance of $100, but on the original $1,500. Check
the fine print of your 'agreement' with the bank that provided
your credit card!
The whole economic system favors the rich and exploits the poor.
To illustrate this point let's look at the Prosper and the Pauper
families. They each want to build a house. Mr. Prosper is a bank
manager with many contacts. He gets a lot of materials and some
services at a discount for past favours. He ends up with a $350,000
house for just under $300,000 for which he pays cash. Mr. and
Mrs. Pauper can't afford anything that fancy and settle for a
house half the value of the Prosper's home, i.e. $175,000 on
which they pay $25,000 down and mortgage the rest over 25 years.
When the Pauper's place is finally paid for they will have paid
more than the Prospers paid for their house or put another way
they have paid for two or three houses of equal value, depending
on prevailing interest rates. In short: the Prospers paid $50,000
less than their house is worth while the Paupers paid twice or
three times the price of their home.
WAR WITH IRAQ?
In the midst of the spreading global economic and social chaos
the US is actively planning to invade Iraq to maintain adequate
oil supplies so that its citizens can continue to waste energy
as they do in Canada and Western Europe. Of course, no one calls
it an oil war: the new euphemistic term added to the political
lexicon is 'regime change.' That is the policy of the US: if
it doesn't like a political leader, it reserves the right to
remove him "by any means." It doesn't matter whether
the head of state is a dictator or a democratically elected leader.
The US installed and supported Somoza in Nicaragua and helped
engineer the removal of Allende in Chile. How many people remember
that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the US when Iraq was at war
with Iran between 1980 and 1988? The US hoped Iraq would win
the war that killed at least a million people and changed no
boundaries It backed Iraq to prevent that cruel clown Ayatollah
Khomeini from establishing a Muslim fundamentalist regime. When
an Iraqi war plane fired missiles at the US Frigate Stark on
May 17, 1987 and 37 American sailors died, President Reagan invented
an excuse for Saddam before he even had a chance to apologize.
Said Reagan: it was an "honest mistake."
It doesn't take much imagination to figure what would happen
today if such an incident were to be repeated. When Hussein failed
to get rid of Khomeini, the US decided to get rid of Hussein.
The switch from ally to enemy is easily made by the US. Ask Manuel
Noriega, ex-president of Panama, who worked closely with the
elder Bush on various nefarious undertakings such as trying to
topple the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. You can find Noriega
in a US prison where he'll be for a very long time. Friend today:
foe tomorrow. The US indeed is a land of opportunity....
George Bush, the elder, at the time of the Gulf War, said he
had no quarrel with the Iraqi people: he just didn't like their
president. But who has suffered extreme hardship this past decade?.
Not Saddam. Instead several hundred thousand Iraqi children have
died because of the sanctions the US has imposed on Iraq, cutting
off most food and medical supplies. As for the elder Bush's son,
no one seems to understand George W. Bush's foreign policy, least
of all the president himself. Like a chameleon it changes all
the time. I think the best way to describe his foreign policy
decisions is: eenie, meenie, minie, mo. It sure confuses friend
and foe alike which may be his intention in the first place.George
W. keeps referring to himself as "a patient man" which
may be his subconscious admission that he is slow. The alleged
justification for an attack on Iraq is that it may have "weapons
of mass destruction." So does Israel, England, France, India,
Pakistan, Russia and China. Are they next on the hit list? Is
the US going to attack itself for it has more weapons of mass
destruction than any other country. The US by the way is the
only country to have used such weapons and on civilian populations,
i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is also worth noting that the
US has refused to have its weapons of mass destruction inspected.
How likely is it that Iraq would use its weapons of mass destruction?
Whatever Saddam Hussein is, stupid is not one of them. He knows
that such an attack by Iraq would result in massive retaliation
by the US. so he would not use such weapons except in self-defence.
For example, if Iraq were attacked and Saddam's career and life
were about to be terminated, then he would have nothing else
to lose by unleashing his deadly stockpiles. So obviously Iraq
is not the threat the US tries to convince the rest of the world
it is, but it does have the second largest oil supplies
in the world and that is what all this sabre-rattling by the
US is all about. If Saddam Hussein was the president of Botswana
no one would be interested in attacking him, because the market
for sand and weeds is not a profitable one.
In the meantime the US war on terror is creating more terrorists
than it eliminates. An invasion of Iraq would create even more
terrorists in unprecedented numbers. Mr. Bush and his fellow
hawks may not understand how ill-conceived this war plan is until
the Middle East blows up and Americans begin to return in body
bags.
It doesn't take much of an IQ to realize there is something seriously
wrong with the Bush plan since it is widely criticized by governments
in both the Middle East and Western Europe. But logic obviously
is not Mr. Bush's trump card. He has his own delusions. Add to
this that history shows the US needs enemies--real or imagined--
and the picture becomes even more frightening.. The military-industrial
complex the late President Dwight Eisenhower warned the world
about, could not survive without adversaries. When insanity is
in full bloom the abnormal seems normal. Altogether now: There
is no business like war business!
REALITY CHECKS
Few things are despised more in this world than truth and reality,
unless these concepts happen to coincide with a person's own
particular points of view. Few people can accept "life in
the raw," i.e. life as it really is. Most people live in
a fantasy world where things make sense and justice prevails--
if not during life then after. A lot more people get excited
about who wins a baseball or hockey game than who pollutes a
river or destroys a forest. Sports fans commonly smash cars,
store windows or each other after a game to express their joy
or disappointment about the outcome. Yet, billions of dollars
are spent on players and stadiums, while there are no adequate
funds for health care and education. In the meantime instead
of a cancer cure we now have a cancer epidemic and more money
is spent on law enforcement than on schools, colleges and universities
combined!
Most people don't see the connection between related matters.
I remember once seeing a woman putting the final touches on a
multi-targetted nuclear warhead in a US plant. As she was polishing
the lethal cone she was asked by a journalist what she thought
about the nature of her work. "I just love this job,"
was her response. Similarly how many people would eat meat if
they witnessed (let alone participated in) the slaughter and
disemboweling of animals? Yet, millions of animals are killed
every day to produce food that no one needs. The delusions about
life extend to delusions about death: dead people are commonly
dressed as though they are going to a party instead of an incinerator
or a hole in the ground.. Fantasies are big business: casinos,
lotteries, funeral homes, advertising, movies, religions, and
so on.
Of course, there are people who cut through all these delusions
to expose the realities of life, but who do they convince? Those
who have the power to make fundamental changes? No, as the cliché
points out correctly: they just preach to the converted. As Alistair
Cooke has explained: most people don't read to test the veracity
of their opinions: they read to reinforce their own prejudices.
Iconoclasts are widely scorned, because most people object strongly
when someone tinkers with their fantasies.
ADVERTISING AND NEWS MEDIA
The advertising and public relations industries, which are built
on illusions, distort reality to suit their needs. Since most
news media are dependent for fiscal survival on advertising revenue,
writers whose views are too far off the beaten track are shut
out no matter how thorough their research and impeccable their
sources may be.
Writing about economic exploitation, social injustice, environmental
degradation and so on may be soothing to the ego of some maverick
writers (myself included), but it does little else. Public opinion
is not shaped by a few rebellious writers, but by the multi-billion
dollar news media which are controlled by even larger corporations,
e.g. ABC news is owned by the Disney Corporation and NBC by General
Electric.
Freedom of the press is largely an illusion. The old saying "he
who pays the piper calls the tune" still applies. The news
is a commodity that is thoroughly managed, commonly distorted
and often withheld. Corporations don't make money on news, but
on advertising. Moreover, news is much more a form of entertainment
than a reliable source of information. Newspaper tycoon, the
late Roy Thompson, once referred to news as "the stuff used
to fill the space between the ads." Hence the number of
pages in any given edition of a newspaper does not depend on
how much news there is, but how much advertising.
So how effective are Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and lesser intellects
in alerting the public to the growing threats? Not very. People
continue to vote against their own interests by electing politicians
who specialize in mediocrity. Most people also don't realize
that neither Canada nor the US is a true democracy, for in both
countries it is possible for a political party to get a majority
of votes and still lose an election (ask Al Gore for details).
If in the US (with some 270 million people) George W. Bush is
the best they can come up with to lead the country, then obviously
the system is not working.
So why am I still writing essays and commentaries? Not because
I think it will make a significant difference, but because of
the satisfaction of knowing (or at least believing) that I am
on the right side of the battle for social justice, political
reform and environmental protection.
Do I believe current trends towards global disaster will be reversed?
No, I don't, because there is not a single scrap of convincing
evidence that this will happen. In fact, if the human race were
a horse I wouldn't bet a dime on its chances of winning the race
against time. It is not that the human race is not capable to
solve all the major problems that beset us; it is because government
leaders and other major decision-makers consider economic consequences
more important than social and environmental needs.
A good example is overpopulation. One does not require a Ph.D.
in mathematics to understand that this planet is not getting
any bigger and has finite resources. Clearly continuous population
growth inevitably means less space and accelerated depletion
of nonrenewable resources such as oil. Try to imagine what the
world would be like without adequate oil and you'll get the picture.
Yet, governments encourage population growth with tax breaks
and some offer parents incentives for large families by offering
bonuses that increase commensurate with family size. The more
people the higher the demand for consumer products. That is bad
for the planet, but great for the economy. Few people understand
the principles of ecology, but everybody understands the language
of money. Politicians rarely see the light until they feel the
heat. They think and act short term and their top priority is
political survival--not the fate of future generations. After
all the unborn can't vote....They prefer instead to practise
reality-denial, believing that the growing problems will vanish
simply by ignoring them. So they pay lip service and practise
tokenism when it comes to long-term concerns.
Ultimately and inevitably such delusions will clash with reality.
It is already happening in the form of global warming which is
wreaking havoc with climates throughout the world. Glaciers are
melting, sea levels are rising, hurricanes re increasing and
insect species are migrating from tropical regions to temperate
zones The incidence of old diseases such as tuberculosis and
malaria is increasing, while microbial mutations are winning
the battle against antibiotics.
I am well aware that many people will disagree with some --or
perhaps even with all-- of the points I have raised: that is
reality denial in action. Some will resort to personal abuse
in the absence of rational arguments and irrefutable evidence.
That shows the weakness of their position. I have heard it all
before and I am unimpressed.
We are all deceiving ourselves: both those who believe we can
continue to plunder the earth with impunity and those who believe
we can persuade enough people to act in time to avert global
disaster. The cost of delusions is high indeed! In conclusion
I paraphrase a native American leader: "when the trees have
gone and the rivers have died, then the white man will realize
you can't eat money..."
RELATED EYE-OPENERS:
Is Human Reproduction
Justifiable?
US: Friendly Giant or Brutal Bully?
Our Pseudo Democracies
Is Life Worth Living?
The Cancer War Hoax
Collective Insanity
Corporate brainwashing
Our pseudo democracies
Meat: the death diet
Corporate Mafia
The unemployment myth
For the politics of cancer see our other
web site: http://members.shaw.ca/cancerconspiracy
HOME |
