Monsters Among Us
Apparently under beds are not the only places where monsters reside. Some monsters have managed to become heads of state. Others have become gangs. Of course it is easy to point to Putin, Jinping, and Hamas as being monsters. But what about Netanyahu and those who are aiding him? Is what Netanyahu doing in Gaza and the West Bank any less evil than what Putin doing in Ukraine or what Jinping has done in Uyghur? And what about Islamic Jihad and ISIS? They cannot be left off the list. I am sure that there are others missing from this very brief list. In fact, with the way that the US has replaced left leaning democracies with brutal tyrants, we could add both those tyrants and the U.S. Presidents who supported them to the list.
The Current Battle
Authoritarianism has reigned for what seems like all of human history. It wasn't until the 20th century that we really began to see the emergence of democracy. Some would remind me that America became a democracy after the Revolutionary War. But what is essential to democracy is equality and that is where America fell far short. America began to approach democracy as women gained the right to vote and Native Americans could become citizens. But those events occurred in the 1920s. The Civil Rights Movement and the Sexual Revolution, without the right to an elective abortion, elevated more groups out of marginalization. And now we are facing a counterrevolution to the emergence of the LGBT community out of the margins.
Currently, America is approaching democracy as more groups are recognized as having equal rights. But it appears that there is a western counterrevolution to democracy with equality. And so democracy with equality is being challenged by authoritarianism with hierarchy. The current form of authoritarianism in Europe and America is authoritarian ethnocratic movements where the ethnocracies in Western European nations are based on national identity and race while the ethnocracies in America and Eastern Europe tend to be based on religion.
However, seeing that if the authoritarian ethonocratic movement in America takes control, America will resemble what Russia is today. And if we look at what Russia is today, perhaps the ethnocratic movements are mere disguises meant to usher in the kind of authoritarian government that Russia has.
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto
Published in 1955 in response to the development of thermonuclear weapons by the U.S. and the then U.S.S.R., British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote the Russell-Einstein Manifesto and it was endorsed by Albert Einstein. Other famous scientists added their signatures to the document.
The understanding these men had of the results of an all out nuclear war were not as well understood then as they are today. Then, they understood such a war made the practical extinction of mankind possible. From what we understand now, such a result is a certainty.
Back then, only the U.S. and the then U.S.S.R. were the only nations that possessed thermonuclear weapons. Today more nations possess such weapons including India and Pakistan who, btw, almost went to war with each other in 2001. And so the threat of nuclear war is currently greater today than back in 1955.
And when we consider that advancements in technology make the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other WMDs, inevitable, the warning issued by the Russell-Einstein Manifesto needs to be heeded now more than ever. Below is part of that Manifesto (click here for the source and the full document ):
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract... They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.
This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out
Though some would point to history and say that the warning of the Manifesto is not realistic because we have always had war. The Manifesto points us to other realities at play here. And those realities include what will follow the continued reliance on war to settle our disputes as well as the results of a full scale nuclear war. For those results tell us that such a war is a death sentence not just for the warring nations, but for all of mankind throughout the whole world.
Where do we stand in the 21st century having been warned in 1955 by such an esteemed collection of scientists? First, we should note that some nations already have stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons and so there would be no need to produce new ones. Second, Israel and the Palestinian terrorists are still at war with each other. The U.S. has attacked either directly or through proxies multiple nations. And Russia once invaded part of Georgia to its south and has been invading Ukraine. NATO is providing Ukraine with weapons and ammunition so it can defend itself. And the Russian leader, Vlad2 Putin, has threatened to use nuclear weapons on those who would go too far in aiding Ukraine.
And should Russia succeed in conquering Ukraine, it is unclear as to whether it would be satisfied with that conquest or it would invade other nations. And should Russia attack a NATO member, then we have a world war. But then again, NATO's expansion eastward not only reminds Russia of some horrific parts of its past, it went against the understanding that President George H. W. Bush had with then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev when they agreed on Germany being reunited.
Have we learned enough from our scientists, both past and present, on how to survive the 21st century? If we look at the U.S., the answer appears to be 'NO!' For just as too many of us Americans scoffed at the pandemic warnings and thus incurred one of the highest, if not the highest, death rate from Covid among the 1st world nations, too many of us also scoff at climate change. The latter reaction is due to the unwillingness to change our lifestyles. And that unwillingness puts future generations at risk.
Evolution tells us that survival can depend on a species' ability to adapt to its environment. Yet, human history tells us that we humans are highly resistant not just to change, but to even recognize the need to change. And that is especially true for those who live the good life.
Our prospects do not look good.
The Rule of Law vs The Rule of Force
In trying to distinguish Israel from its enemies, Ben Netanyahu claimed that Israel follows the Rule of Law while his Palestinian enemies do not. What Ben, and I can call him Ben because he went to a neighboring high school of mine and he is somewhat close to my age, did not understand is that the Rule of Law is not about being strong enough to make the rules for others to follow--that also seems to be the American version of the Rule of Law. Rather, the Rule of Law refers to the set of laws which all nations, including those nations that make rules for others, are to follow. Here, the Rule of Law refers to international law. And when it comes to violating international law, Israel is as guilty as those Palestinian terrorists who are its enemies.
Are the major powers any different here from Israel and its enemies in terms of not following the Rule of Law? The U.S. certainly isn't and neither is Russia, nor are the major players in NATO. And that brings us back to the Russell-EInstein Manifesto and ominous clouds that seem to be advancing toward us from the horizon.
Conclusion
History and the book of James tells us that we fight wars because we don't have what we want. In fact, sometimes we go to war because others won't share with us what is rightfully theirs. And since the continued reliance on war will eventually trigger the use of WMDs, such as thermonuclear weapons, as it stands now our demise will be the result of our refusal to share power and wealth with others. Such a conclusion does not bode well in the current political climate where many nations are seeing movements that demand to have absolute power over their own nations. And they demand to have such power because they feel exclusively entitled to it due to their own delusions of grandeur.
And the above is where this blog's 2024 emphasis comes into play. For that emphasis revolves around what Martin Luther King Jr. said about the need for a world revolution that calls on us to change from being a thing-orient society to being a person-oriented society(click here for the source):
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
That revolution can start at home and with how we treat our own neighbors. And then it can spread to the nation and how it treats its neighbors, especially those who are seeking to escape poverty and violence. And perhaps, then we can see that revolution change into a world revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment