Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Bo, we have to change the government. You have to change the government so they don’t have to be so divisive. Then again, the division is, it’s everywhere. It’s not only in your government but everywhere. It’s really fascinating that we want those decent people like this circle here that they don’t want to be divisive, they want to be inclusive of all. And their governments are not. But they are the very ones who elected their governments. We tend to forget that the government you and I we elected they are our servants. Bo, the government you elected is servant for you. So what you want is what they need to implement. If you want, if you are a decent person and you want best for the world you have to tell your servants who are your government to be so. And if you don’t they will exactly the way you are at the end of the day. And lo and behold we see over and over all over the world how the people are divisive rather than inclusive. I look forward to the day when the great circle of life wherein which we trust one another, in which love one another and honor one another can become alive in each and every person. So no one will fear one another. Well everyone will honor and respect one another. Can you imagine, Bo, to live that day? Holy shoot! I can hardly wait to that day in which I can be standing next to somebody who honors me and respects me and whom I honor and respect. And we can look at each other’s eyes, into each other’s eyes and heart and beings and realize that even our governments are living what we elected them to do. To honor and respect one another for times and times to come. If it is not happening, Bo, you have much work to do. Then again, me too I guess. I promise to stand by you, to help you to achieve the very question you pose to the world. And I think you for doing so. In my language we say [ku-ya-nuk] which means thank you for posing the question.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Well, I think the question starts to answer itself, which is first we need to accept this division. We need to understand that we are going to have to create our own sources of power. We are going to have to create our own organization. We are going to have to create our own international relationships and that we can’t rely on so-called political leadership, we can’t rely on elected officials to do that for us. We are going to have to go around them and have to challenge them. We are going to have to act independently in order to bring about change, in order to bring about a different international order, in order to bring about justice, in order to bring about greater democracy and freedom, and we are going to have to see that it is up to us to do that. So, it’s up to us to create those new institutions, it’s up to us to create those new organizations, those new networks and there is no shortcuts in politics, there is no shortcuts in history. It requires understanding that one has to go out beginning to set about doing it and finding other people to do it, because as individuals we can’t do it but collectively, with other people, we have a power and we can. And so, it is about finding those around you who share a vision, who share a set of values, who share a set of beliefs and beginning to take the steps to make that new world possible, beginning to take the step to organize, beginning to find the ways to confront, to challenge the people who are the obstacles, the institutions, the obstacle to bringing about that change. And really, there is no substitute for that, there is no simple way of getting around that. But, in the process of doing that, we begin to answer this question, we begin to find what works, what doesn’t, we begin to ask the question of what in history has worked to bring about these kinds of change, and how we can learn from the mistakes, but also the examples, the positive examples in our history that can lead us towards the insight, that can lead us towards an alternative.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, I think it is up to the decent people of the world to actually stand up to the actions of their leaders which is self-serving and causing more conflict. If people had more people to people connections, they would realize, for example, President Bush perhaps does not represent all Americans, does not represent the desires of most Americans; that Tony Blair does not represent what most of the people in England want; or John Howard doesn’t represent people of Australia. Perhaps it represents President Bush more. So, it is really about connecting with each other and wanting to know more about each other. I think it’s one way to actually build a world which is not so divided because if leaders are allowed to actually define our connections, we will only see a divisive world. There would not be peace in the Middle East; there would not be peace between India and Pakistan. But when people can talk to each other, when they can share their experiences with each other, we actually find that we have the same aspirations: a safe secure future, future for our families and children, where our children do not have to think about being suicide bombers or fighting unjust wars. So that kind of connection is very important and that is what we can do to be global citizens.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: This question raises the question about who are the decent people? And what does decency mean in terms of spiritual values and global values? I think it’s a very good question and timely. Because it’s clear that the current leadership across the planet tends to be more ego-based and egocentric and self-protective and prejudiced from point of view of their power and own control in contradistinction to the power to the people. And it appears at this time, of the awakening of global culture and a global civilization, that the people of this planet across all of our borders, if you are going to call "decent people," what does decency mean? Decency comes from humility. That comes from the realization of our great wisdom teachers that when one let’s go of the arrogance of one’s own egocentric perspective and world view. To let go one’s ego identity, to move into a deeper way of being a self that is connected in the sacredness of all life. That is the decency of the global citizen of a dialogical being, a true human. So the question is, as true humans, awakened human beings, who live in the sacred space of interconnectivity of all life with nature, come together as we are now on this planet. And this table of free voices is one example of this movement that’s taking place. As this happens, we are going to have to stand up as people across all of our borders. And confront the old model of leadership that’s egocentric and ego-based and call our leadership to have to follow the power of the people and rise to this higher form of global consciousness of mutual respect of collaboration and co-creation and partnership across our old borders. And that seems to be what this question is inviting us to think about and has now become a necessity if we are going to survive on this planet as one human family.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: People need to connect with each other and there is the advent of modern technology, like for example the Internet and the telephones that help us to stay connected in ways that are unprecedented and therefore allows the mobilization of the ordinary citizen, banding together to create tremendous power among the people that actually speak to the awakening of the global sleeping giant which is civil society itself, to be able to help each other to become informed, to understand action plans that they can undertake, that can help to promote their mutual well-being through actions of cooperation, and there is this ability now to link with people from all over the world that we did not have the capacity to be able to do before. But we are increasingly having the capacity to do and therefore people who are well intentioned, well meaning, who see the way that the world can be made a better place must take it upon themselves to connect with each other and to create those action plans and initiatives that going to help the human family, regardless of how the leadership of any given country may behave. And so to that extent we can actually drop our loyalty and commitment to national identities where there is a recognition that leadership in any given country may not be leading with wisdom or justice or an ethical base. And the people themselves who have increasing power to be able to have their voices heard through their positive actions.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: What actually does "the decent people" mean? How can "the decent people" help each other? Who are these "decent people of the world"? Who decides who is decent and who is not? Do we all have the same criteria? If I think that someone is decent, can I, may I assume that others think that this person and his behaviour are decent too? Who decides this? What is "decent"? The governments - are governments against the decent people automatically? Are governments indecent at heart? No, this question points that there are people who think that they know the absolute truth. They "know" correctly what is right or wrong, what is decent or indecent, what is worthwhile or worthless. But this is not the fact: How can different opinions, the different people, different cultures and the different natures live together in peace? This is the question and the answer is democracy. Not because democracy is the absolute truth or the perfect solution for everything, but just because today democracy is the best method we know to allow a collective life, tolleration and respect to each other and this actually is almost the best we can get: Respect and accept the others as they are, not wanting to force them to live after our criterias or as we want to.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Divisive, divisive. How can the decent people of the world help each other? Well, the actions of their leadership are self-serving. Divisive. We need to do what we’re doing. We need to drop some knowledge, we need to have these conversations and then it’s not about this instance, about what happen after this instance. We need to help each other by having these resources, this information accessible. And see that we are all connected, that it’s all relative, it’s all connected. We are all a part of this environment; it’s all alive, it’s all organic, it’s all moving at all times. And that this network within the circle and the relationships between them, we need to see how these relationships can mean mutually beneficial. And relationship that is mutually beneficial, how can we make it more mutually beneficial? Our leaders need to ask these questions, and not be so self-serving. They need to relinquish that power as in the previous question, relinquish the power of their ego, and see how they can contribute to whole, and create these relationships and these networks, and allow these resources to be available to the decent people of the world. What about the indecent people of the world? They are still a part of this circle? We’re all a part of this circle and even the leaders. They need to step away from the top and sit within. We’re all leaders here sitting together focusing in on the same one, with the same questions and addressing it. Some more dialogue, more multilogue not a just a monologue or a dialogue, but a multilogue. It’s a multiple conversations, multiple information coming in the play and listening. We have two ears and one mouth. We need to listen twice as much as we talk.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas:

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: There is always a possibility for the people of the world help each other and positively act towards each there; there is no government that can prohibit this. An example for this is the tunnel citizens of Berlin were digging under the wall separating them, even though that from the eastside even every bird trying to fly over was shot dad. Other touching example is of the Hollander that send his small dispatches in occupied Sarajevo, some salt in the envelop or needle and thread. I believe this is more useful as a model and sign of solidarity than the savage that’s being thrown out of planes in the crisis territories, sometimes even without knowing where dose bombs of humanity land.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well-well, let’s repeat this question. So, how can the decent people of the world help each other while the actions of their leadership are self-serving and internationally divisive? Well, let’s see, I think we can help ourselves by turning our attention back to where it needs to be, which is with each other where we live. Re-empowering true civics. Re-empowering true community. I think we give too much of our power away to government, which means we’re giving it away to people that often don’t deserve it. So, how can we help ourselves? By doing just that; returning to a sense of scale, returning to a sense of community, engaging in dialogues like this and true dialogues. Not arguing about what it is we think we should have, but really getting into the discussion about what’s truly important to us. That’s really – that’s what Dropping Knowledge is. You know, that’s what makes today so amazing. Yeah, it’s really starting this dialogue you know. I think the actions of our leaders are often self-serving and I think we do need to help ourselves. I think we give far too much of ourselves away. I think we’re giving far too much of our attention to so-called leaders. The job of a leader, actually, is only possible – leadership is only possible when the leaders love the people. You can only truly lead, which means people follow you, when you love the people. You can only really save the people – and I think this is a great quote we heard last night – I think it’s from Martin Luther King. “We can only really save the people when we serve the people.” So yeah, we’ve got to stop serving ourselves and serve each other. That’s really the thing and that’s what leadership should really be about, serving the people. We need a major U-turn here, I think. That’s the short answer to this. Maybe we just have to remind our leadership of what their true job is, you know, to serve. That’s what real leadership is about.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Catherine David:

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: The more in number, the more courage and the more the words of pain will reach to everywhere, so many people. It also will be a challenge to dictators or to those such leaders who try to make you shut up. And it also will encourage everybody else who want to stand up and to defend the truth. It will be encouraging for those who have shied away; to be encouraging for those who never want to stand alone and defend the truth, just like we are sitting here. You are encouraged to speak out. You're encouraged to tell what is really in your heart. And so the more words, the more the propaganda will be weak, because such a leader, of course, uses a lot of propaganda. And if there is no other counter to that propaganda, then it's a catastrophe.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: There are possibilities today to use technical connections wisely, the internet proves that these possibilites exist, that everybody can reveal his/her opinion in public. Of course it is a fallacy to believe that the modern forms of the digital revolution, of the internet, of the mass communication, of the TV, of the radio, of MTV, of CNN, of the movie industry, briefly, the fact that people get closer to one another, that they travel more, to the farthest places in the world, to Surinam, to Butang. All these technical, this getting-closer-technically has not led to the fact that people dealt with one another more peacefully, on the contrary, the past decades have shown growing ethnic-religious conflicts, fundamentalism as a form of anti-modernism in the islamic states, in Algeria, in Iran. People don't get closer to one other in the context of an interreligious and intercultural dialogue because of the possibilities of digitality, on the contrary, they drift apart, that is to say the soul does not seem to catch up, the technical possibilities of the digital revolution and of the mass media don't lead to a fraternization of people, they even seem to lead to an alienation. This is deplorable if we think about the meaningful and peacemaking possibilities technology can have, however not necessarily; and the main concern can only be how to use technology so that it will contribute to peace and this modest attempt today is an attempt to use the digital revolution in the context of a policy promoting peace. But we experience this paradox very clearly, that the technological pinnacle of the media industry, that the getting-closer because of many travels does not free us from an increase of fundamentalism or ethnic-religious conflicts, from the particularisation, the balkanization of the world. This balkanization has increased in the past three decades, it has not decreased despite of the digital revolution. This is alarming.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Cornel West: I think this question has much to do with what we are trying to do here in this historic square right now. We are trying to come together. We are trying to constitute dialogue. We are trying to encourage one another, inspire one another, empower, enable, and ennoble one another in such a way that we are not fundamentally identified with our relative and respective national leaderships. We are free human beings and free citizens who speak our minds, who make our own judgments, who decide who speaks for us, not just politically but also morally and ethically. And the decent human beings in various nations around the world can come together and bring principal criticism to their own governments without being thrashed as unpatriotic, but simply saying that justice always has value over any national loyalty, that equality and democracy always have value over any patriotic sensibility. We are citizens of the world and we are human beings on this planet Earth who are wedded to all human beings. And, when our governments get in the way, they become secondary. And that, for those of us who are Christians, the cross always has priority over any flag because that cross is about justice and love; and whether we are religious or not, if we’re moral, ethical, sensitive human beings, our moral principles have priority over our national ideologies.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 2:00:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Based on our experience, I think there is a need to network those people who have decent lives and who are willing to serve others. Well, we may have divisive leaders, but our divisive leaders especially if they are power-oriented can never see the reality that they should be there to serve the people. And, for me, it's very important to connect those people who have good hearts in spite of their divisive leaders to make difference in this society. I believe that we can only make difference if and only if decent people will work together, network together in spite of the geographical locations, the race, the gender. There is really a need to network these people who have similar visions to make difference - good difference in this society because as the question said if you have divisive leader, those leaders will never help to make difference in this world but to maintain their position in politics and their economic control. And, that's the reason why we need to network those people who have good hearts in order to make difference and serve those unserved people in the humanity.´ The one thing is it might be good if those decent people will work together and remove their divisive leaders because they don't deserve to be a leader if they are practicing divisive. And, we can understand that divide and rule tactic are being used by politicians. It's for me are always part of the culture of politics. And, therefore, there is really a need to network those people who have good hearts, those who are -- those who have decent lives to make difference in our society.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas