Before I get into this post, I’d like to wish that I had the time,
energy and other resources to spend the time researching and thinking about
what I’m going to cover in the depth it requires, and then write something with
the eloquence it deserves. However, I have to earn my living, so … so be it:
this is what you’re going to get :)
So now the post itself.
I’ve finally been able to get a copy of the BBC TV series “37 Days” [2] (took
a while: my local DVD and CD shop took over two weeks: I know it comes from
overseas, but maybe there’s a high demand for it, given the centenary of those
events being now?), and have now watched it without interruptions and gaps.
So … could World War
Part One (as I – and absolutely
no-one else, I suspect :) - call it) have been avoided?
At the level of examination shown in the aforementioned
TV series, it seems so.
Now, most of the commentary I’ve seen around this basically focuses on
things like a missed assurance, the details of treaties/’understandings’ which
were hidden from the British Parliament, or Moltke’s
aggression and determination to have a major war - or Kaiser Bill’s
aggression and determination to have a ‘small’ war (is it small for those who die or are injured or otherwise affected?).
These are - mostly - all correctly identified as lost opportunities to
avoid the war which led to the Russian Revolution
and the Cold War, the rise of
the Nazis and thus World
War Part Two, and massive changes including the end of the German, Russian,
Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman (so some
changes, I have to say, for the better - I’m not in favour of empires: the question is, could there have been a better way of acheiving those changes?).
However, their focus is, in my view, somewhat limited.
Whilst these lost opportunities are not like the policy of appeasement which Neville Chamberlain
infamously appeared to misunderstand (and
which John F. Kennedy
suggested had its uses,
as it allowed Britain time to rearm … and which Eyre Crowe argued against
in 1907 [3]
) and risks, to paraphrase words from the film “Thirteen
Days”, making the aggressor more aggressive, they miss the changes
which were afoot at that time. Those changes, dating back to the Age of Enlightenment
(and maybe earlier, really … ),
perhaps, are the changes away from authoritarian government
[4] towards freedom and inclusive democracy, democracy in the
form of Parliamentary democracy in the case of the United Kingdom, democracy
which was and still is flawed, despite being better than the version invented
by the Greeks, a better version summarised in the ‘Liberté,
Égalité, Fraternité‘ of the French Revolution,
and further elaborated in the Declaration of
Independence of the United
States of America.
That form of democracy is something which we’re more familiar with
these days, and, to us, the notion of Parliamentary accountability is not the
affront that Edward Grey took it to be - and the idea of Parliamentary
accountability is now widely accepted, although some still try to dodge round
it (as a quick example, perhaps consider
the alleged
misleading of Parliament by Tony Blair).
However, going back to the opportunities to avoid World War Part One,
the key moment as I saw it, was when
the German socialists failed to prevent funding going to the war effort. “37 Days” portrays this, ironically, as
being motivated by concerns about Russia’s abuses of Jews. (Why is that ironic? because part of the legacy of World War Part One includes
the creation and rise of the Nazi party, and their appalling Holocaust.) If
the German socialists had voted to deny funding, that would have:
- (a) prevented the initial battles of 1914, thus perhaps allowing Russian reforms to make Russia’s military a more credible force and allow time for the identification and management of the underlying problems in Europe at that time (and some people knew that a war in ‘the Balkans’ could become a World War, including the previous German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and politicians such as Lord Morley);
- (b) created a precedent illustrating the supremacy of an elected Parliament in Germany, and
- (c) potentially changing the direction of Germany (should I refer to the Germany of that time as a Prussian empire? It was, in many ways) away from militarism and empire building towards focus on other matters, matters exemplified by socialism (i.e., care for people’s welfare and wellbeing).
The other opportunities to avoid the start of World War Part One did
not change the tensions or political situations or underlying problems in the
same way, and thus may have been more of a deferral than a true avoidance (useful thought that may have been, as I
mentioned).
To me, one of the key elements is people – not just the politicians –
wanting to be part of something larger than just the individual. Some people
want to feel that they have a wonderful family (acknowledge your blessings if
you do, and then think of those who don’t and do something to help them), or
are part of a great nation – even that they barrack for a great sporting team (I’d add “go the Dee’s”
here, but have reservations that they will do much for a while … SIGH ).
If this sort of desire is for something fairly innocuous, like a
sporting team, and it isn’t hiding a personal flaw (such as seeing oneself as being inadequate or incomplete or somehow
lacking when one is ‘just’ an individual), that’s OK.
When it manifests as violence, or abuse of others, which can be the
case with some
sports followers and is often the case with many people suffering a nationalistic fervour
(especially a jingoistic
nationalistic fervour), it is not
OK. It’s downright wrong – it harms not only the victims of the perpetrator’s
hatred and/or other violence, but the perpetrator themselves as well.
Why are people like this? Well, notwithstanding the expert views cited
in the Wikipedia article on
nationalism, my take on this is that it is a form of tribalism, but a form that is
more based on modern right wing views of what a family should be like, than the
at times surprising tolerance of difference that used to exist in old tribal
societies (I can’t give you a ready link
for that: you’ll have to research, consult your BPLF [1] Guides and Patron Deities
and Higher Self, and then – gasp! shock! horror! – think about it and make up
your own mind, Dear Reader). This new version of ‘tribal’ includes a lot of
emotional blackmail and other control actions to enforce conformity, so … I think
I’ll refer to this as ‘right wing family ‘tribalism’
‘ …
That ‘right wing family ‘tribalism’
’ is, of course, counter to what is required for an effective democracy.
For a democracy to be effective, it needs voters who are:
- adequately educated (especially on the matter of critical thinking [5] );
- properly informed (which means no biased or compromised media); and
- thoughtful.
And that latter characteristic is
also anathema
to the frenetic pace of modern life.
So … what does one do about this?
Well, advocate for better education (it has to be more than just the 3Rs type of approach)
and better media, be thoughtful oneself (maybe
even do Mr Myers’ course … ), and do the usual sort of clearing
of negative units and creating positive energy that I keep advocating for –
notably, in this context, in my post
on changing the personality of oppressors –who can be anywhere, including
in families (even – gasp! shock! horror!
– right wing ones).
How do other people view the causes of World War Part One? Well, I
don’t know anyone who has done much on the psychic side of that (other than comments by Lobsang Rampa [2] that
the world had a choice at that time, and chose the harder road), but there
are other analyses.
If we consider the German Ambassador to Britain during the July Crisis
of 1914, Count
Lichnowsky, he wrote a pamphlet,
in 1916, in which he laid blame for the war with Germany (this led to his removal from the Prussian House of Lords, when it was
re-published in the USA). In this pamphlet, the Count apparently deplored
the development of an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
“This is a return to the days of the Holy Roman Empire and the mistakes of the Hohenstaufens and Habsburgs.”
He also disputed the view of Germany being encircled, including
examples of the aid Germany had received from Britain, and sets out three specific
failures of diplomatic efforts during that time.
It’s quite a good summary of what was happening in the outer, physical
world, but doesn’t change my view of the significance of attitudes and the
influence of people with oppressor type personalities.
Let’s consider the very well-known book by Barbara Tuchman, “The Guns of August” (which I will have to re-read, to take advantage of maturity and the gain in perspective from watching this TV series that I have since I first read it, back in my 20s).
From the Wikipedia article, the causes identified include:
- a belief that economic links would counter the tendency towards a large conflict (it was rubbish then, and I’ve thought it self-evident rubbish throughout this incarnation);
- an incredibly erroneous belief that the war would be over quickly, which relates to matters such as the failure to understand changes; and
- a failure to consider political backlash, such as that invading Belgium would guarantee Britain’s entry into the war.
Think all that is historical, and thus of no relevance?
Think again.
Those sorts of attitudes and presumptions are still around us today –
I’ve heard fools making comments along the line that economic and cultural ties
will of themselves prevent wars, and
we’ve seen the failure to think consequences through in Iraq.
What I would like to do, however, is apply the thoughts I’ve had after
watching this TV series to current areas of conflict. Let’s begin with the disputed
Senkaku / Diaoyu / Tiaoyutai islands.
I wrote a
post about this back in December, 2013, which I’ve just re-read. I’m still
satisfied with what I wrote, in principle, but can I add more to that as a
result of my thinking after watching “37
Days”?
Well, yes.
I think that the lessons that economic ties are not enough to prevent
war, or to restrain the extent of war, are a point that everyone needs to take
on board. There are oil reserves in the region of the islands, which is why
everyone has become so enthusiastic about the islands’ sovereignty, but that
does not mean the dispute is solely about oil. If it was, claims would be being
made about other oil fields: the fact that such claims are not being made means
that there is some consideration, even if it is not as deep as would, perhaps,
be ideal, being given to international law – at this stage, at any rate. That
consideration is something that can be worked on usefully as in, encourage respect for international
law, and a desire to use due process (in
addition to the matters I raised in the previous post, and earlier in this one).
I should take a moment to point out that I am of the view that people
can be swayed in one direction or another by just a few words, spoken at the right
time. Hollywood portrayed that in the films “The Sum of
All Fears”, the BBC showed it in this series, and the film “Always”
showed how psychic versions of such influences can work.
All such BPLF influences, physical and nonphysical, will be needed to
prevent the “sabre-rattling”
tipping over the edge into war, and it will also be important to clear (which restricts this comment to
nonphysical activity) all nonBPLF influences, and apply the techniques I’ve suggested
(or which you may have developed - I'm not the ultimate arbiter on anything) to
the changing of modern day Moltkes.
If we look at what is happening in the broader picture, China is
resuming its previous position, from a few centuries or millennia ago, as a
major world power. As it does so, it is endeavouring to modernise, and to
improve the lives of many of its people – and, as the largest population in the
world, and with a history over several millennia that has included too much oppression of
its people, it has a need to do so. At present, this is being done in a way
that is not in line with current good practice with regards to environmental
issues. To be sure, the current environmental crisis was created by the West, the
nations of which gained their economic and technological advantages at the
expense of the environment [6], and the West is not doing anywhere near
enough to address this, but there has been concern about China’s impact on the
world environmentally. So … would China being able to access the oil reserves
be a good, or a bad thing? I’m not sure – but I do know that access could also
be gained by one of the other claimants developing the oil field, and then
selling the oil to China.
In terms of avoiding war, China’s advances need to be kept in mind when
anyone else is assessing their military (some
of the Germans were too dismissive of the French, back in 1914), as does
their trend towards a more advanced economy. They’re still not a democracy,
although there are moves towards that, and have been for a few decades now (yes, I’m very much aware of the reactionary
response shown in Tiananmen
Square – see my earlier
post about this dispute): the measures that would be implemented under
a war scenario may not be the best way to advance that trend … but the development
of a richer middle class might be, which would suggest there could be benefits
in China gaining access to the oil. Again, that access doesn’t need to be by
means of possession – and a war to try and gain possession, without respect
towards international law, would show China to simply be an ill mannered brute,
a thug like some
of those who helped suppress the Boxer Rebellion, modern
day Moltkes.
Next, Japan.
The impression I have is that Japan is too consumerist and conformist
to be democratic. This is a land where the ‘developments of a middle class’ has
become destructive, and the culture strikes me as too ‘pop’, too much what used
to be called bourgeois,
to be truly democratic. There is too little debate, far too little diversity,
and things like the pursuit of perfection and their ‘Living National
Treasures’, things which I consider admirable from a range of views
including spiritual, have become a measure of what is the exception, rather
than the norm.
And then there is the development of that faction which is trying to
revise their records of history to excuse what Japan did in World War Part Two (for instance, see here).
That is unacceptable from every point of view, including spiritual.
This is a nation that I consider least deserving of the oil reserves in
this disputed area, and yet it probably has the best claim. And in no way does
any of this examination justify violence – even if a war was fought between
Japan and China with the result that Japan lost, that is not going to change
things for the better in Japan. In Europe, there were actually quite a few
movements aiming to make positive changes: if such movements are present in
Japan, they’re not being heard anywhere outside of Japan. Losing a war is only
more likely to drive Japan into a more authoritarian stance, along the lines of
those idiots in Thailand who are agitating for a return to a monarchy. A more
focused Japan, one more focused by the current revisionist leadership in Japan
on saving face is a Japan that is more likely to go down the path of Putin –
who I will write about shortly.
Finally, Taiwan.
I have to admit to knowing little of this nation, other than its recent
history, when people went there from mainland China, the People’s Republic of China, to
form a Nationalistic
government in continuance of what had been in power before the Chinese Revolution,
and which has more recently changed towards
democracy and existence as a sovereign nation in its own right, rather than
harbouring an unattainable dream of reconquering the PRC.
Akin to those Don
Quixotes who thought they could re-invade mainland China, the PRC still harbours
dreams that Taiwan is still Formosa, its 23rd province [7] .
I used to think that was a possibility, just as the reunification of
North and South Korea is a possibility. It’s unlikely, but I grew up in a
world where the fall
of the Berlin Wall [8] , let alone the reunification of
East and West Germany, was unthinkable, and the prospect of Honk
Kong sovereignty being transferred back to China was associate with
predictions of massacres and atrocities and all sorts of disasters (not that
there haven’t been problems [see here and here], but it has, overall, been a lot better than
expected by quite a few). If I look at Europe, even a century ago, at the time
of the events portrayed in “37 Days”
the prospect of a European Union was laughable enough to have one hauled off to
an insane asylum.
How would this nation be affected by gaining access to those oil
fields? Would it be better, or worse? More democratic and free, or less? More
spiritual, or more materialistic? More secure, or more susceptible to aggression (possibly even invasion) from the PRC?
I will meditate on all these questions before tonight’s generation and
sending of positive energy.
Now, I had planned on trying to do this sort of analysis in other
troubled places in the world – places like the Middle East and Africa, both of
which are still experiencing fallout from World War Part One, and Ukraine. I
have, however, run out of time. So, all I will do is include a couple of brief
comments.
Firstly, Ukraine.
Ukraine, in my view, lost a lot of moral stature when it continued or
even increased military action after the shooting down of MH17. They would have, in my view,
got where they wanted to be through international pressure and reaction, and
without the harm – including wounding, maiming and killing – done to people it
claims to view as Ukrainian. That slower, less injurious approach, however, is
never satisfactory to belligerent types, those often referred to colloquially
as ‘hawks’ and who I now refer to as modern day Moltkes, people who want
to prove that they are militarily superior – as if that ever meant anything.
However, they were clearly winning that war, and that is why Putin has
opened a second front, and started rattling
the nuclear sabre.
So the Russian Moltkes are trying an escalation of the conflict towards
more open war, combined with bullying threats, to see if that will
enable them to defeat the Ukrainian Moltkes.
And clearly none of the politicians on either side has ever thought of
how to effectively manage their military, the sort of skill showed so well by
John F Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. (Incidentally, I like David Cameron's recent suggestion.)
OK, so I will largely be continuing with the usual psychic work that I
advocate, combined with trying to strengthen the connection between Russian and
Ukrainian politicians and their Higher Selves and BPLF Guides and Patron
Deities. (Incidentally, when working on
clearing negative units away from Putin, I have the impression that there are
four key advisors to work on as well.)
As a final point on this issue, I found this week, that there is a word
which covers the sort of behaviour that Russia is engaging in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism. The term, according to that link, was invented to
describe Italy acquiring territories from the Austro-Hungarian Empire that were
largely occupied by Italians, but applies to a surprisingly long list of places
and events, including:
- the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan;
- Kurdistan (which I support - although some Kurdish groups need to disavow terrorism, and accept the existence of Turkey);
- Israel (although I support the existence of Israel [and thus oppose the views of Hamas on this], I do not support its expansionism and oppression of the Palestinians);
- many places in Africa (note my previous comment about fallout from World War Part One);
- infamously, Nazi Germany, and, more recently,
- Putin’s concept of “Greater Russia” …
I’m going to end this post with a comment on one of the evils of ISIL,
or QSIL, as one Muslim cleric has suggested it be referred to
(on the entirely reasonable grounds that they are NOT actually following Islam –
see here,
here,
here
and here,
which is a particularly good article, and remember the importance of cutting off
their logistics – see here
and here).
They have been killing
prisoners – barbarically, and very publicly. There is, under such
circumstances, a very real possibility that such actions can inspire one’s
opponents to fight more fiercely, literally to the death, rather than risk
being captured alive …
QSIL
is also committing atrocities against women. May Kwan Yin and The Morrigan stop
and right that wrong – and the other wrongs - with true BPLF justice, and BPLF only [1] means.
So mote it
be.
[8] I still love the song written by the Scorpions about
that: “Wind
of Change” … and still am uninterested by anything else that band did :) I’ve
just taken some time out to have a look at a Vevo version on YouTube …
ah, wonderful. (And I’m sad that the cassette I had with that on has died :( )
[7] On my first work trip to China, I was doing the mechanical pre-commissioning
for a water treatment plant. Ironically, some of the motors there came from
Taiwan – via Australia. The engineers I was working with referred mad a point
of referring to the motors as being from “Formosa”. (They also had much better
lap tops than we did, and had received good teaching, but needed more practical
experience, and didn’t treat OHS with the respect it deserved.)
[6] On that, I watched an
episode of a British history document, a BBC programme shown on our SBS, last Friday. In that, it seemed that the
British Navy was built using gold and silver that Francis Drake had ‘taken’ (I
think stolen is a more appropriate word, actually) from the Spanish … who had
stolen it from South America … So, much of Britain’s influence in the world
appears to me to be founded on some very unethical, unspiritual, and quite
possibly downright illegal behaviour. Hmm. That’s an ‘interesting’ set of
implications to think through …
[5] And this is where I’ll give another plug for Brendan Myers’ “Clear
and Present Thinking”.
[4] It is, perhaps, worth
reiterating the description by Juan Linz in 1964 of authoritarian governments cited in
the introduction to the linked article: (1) "limited, not responsible, political
pluralism"; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups (such
as legislatures, political parties and interest groups), (2) a basis for
legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a
necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such
as underdevelopment or insurgency; (3) neither "intensive nor extensive
political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as
repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity)
and (4) "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague.
[3] From his “Memorandum on the Present State of British Relations with France and
Germany”: “To give way to the
blackmailer's menaces enriches him, but it has long been proved by uniform
experience that, although this may secure for the victim temporary peace, it is
certain to lead to renewed molestation and higher demands after ever-shortening
periods of amicable forbearance.”
[2]
Please see here and my post "The
Death of Wikipedia" for the
reasons I now recommend caution when using Wikipedia. I'm also exploring use of
h2g2, although that doesn't appear to be as
extensive (h2g2 is intended - rather
engagingly - to be the Earth edition of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy").
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr,
Wéofodthegn
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear"; ... aka Bellatrix
Lux? … Morinehtar?
… Would-be drýicgan
... )
My "blogiography" (list of all posts and guide as to how to best use this site) is here, and my glossary/index is here.
I started this blog to cover karmic regression-rescue (see here and here), and it grew ... See here for my group mind project, here and here for my "Pagans for Peace" project (and join me at 9 PM on Sunday, wherever you are, to meditate for peace), and here for my bindrune kit-bag. I also strongly recommend learning how to flame, ground and shield, do alternate nostril breathing, work with colour, and see also here and be flexible.
- One size does NOT fit all.
- Don't be mediocre - seek to excel.
- Gnwmythr's Stropping Strap: Occam's Razor only works if the simplest solution is actually recognised as being the simplest, rather than the one that best fits one's bigotries being labelled 'simplest'.
- Our entire life experience, with all the many wondrous and varied people, places and events in it, is too small a sample for statistical reliability about Life.
- May the world of commerce and business be recognised to be a servant, not a master, of the lives of people.
- Ban the dream interpretation industry!
- A home is for living in, not feeling, becoming or being rich or a “better” class than others.
- Being accustomed to interacting via certain rules makes those rules neither right nor universal.
- Like fire to the physical, emotions to the soul make a good servant, and a bad master.
- Expertise at intimacy and emotional happiness is generally not the same thing as spiritual growth.
- Any person, male or female, who has neither a serious health issue, dependents nor an agreement about study. yet expects their partner to work to support them, is, spiritually speaking, little more than a parasite.
- The means shape the end.
- BPLF restraint of uncooperatives is NOT an opportunity for revenge or getting even - even unconsciously.
- As words can kill, the right to freedom of speech comes with a DUTY to be as well-informed, objective and balanced as you can be.
- My favourite action movie of all time is "Gandhi", although I've recently come across "Invictus" and might put that one in to that category. However, I loathe the stereotypical action movie - and, for similar reasons, I loathe many dramas, which are often emotionally violent, more so in some cases than many war films.
- All of the above - and this blog - could be wrong, or subject to context, perspective, or state of spiritual evolution ...
Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be
stronger [people].
John F. Kennedy (who was
quoting 19th Century Episcopal Bishop Phillips Brooks)
Jesus loves you. Odin wants you to grow up.
We make our decisions. And then our decisions turn around and make us.
F.W. Boreham
Females, get over 'cute'. Get competent. Get trained. Get capable. Get over 'cute'. And those of you who are called Patty and Debby and Suzy, get over that. Because we use those names to infantalise females – we keep females in their 'little girl' state by the names we use for them. Get over it. If you want to be taken seriously, get serious.
Jane Elliott
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.
(based on
writing by) Edmund Burke
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
Albert Einstein
We didn't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we only borrowed it from our children
Antoine De Saint-Exupéry
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that -- counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. ... Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
Robert F. Kennedy 1968
There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.
John F. Kennedy
If we could change ourselves, the
tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so
does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see
what others do. (Often degraded to “Be
the change you want to see in the world” – see here)
Gandhi
Tags: Africa, China, evolution, governance, international politics, Middle East, nonviolence, peace, politics, Ukraine, violence, war,
First published: Sunnudagr, 31st August, 2014
Last edited (excluding fixing typo's and other minor matters): Sunday, 31st August, 2014
