War & Taking Sides

We all know that killing is wrong, but on the other hand it seems that there are many occasions we need to defend ourselves from attack, and as US has argued recently even go that extra step and attack our potential enemies, and has Mr Blair has argued last week deal with criminal elements in society at birth! It is a perennial problem for me deciding whether I would fight for my country, deciding whether to agree with other people fighting and deciding in my personal life whether to launch an attack on elements I see as harmful - like my bosses stupidity etc.

I woke up this morning and finally have the answer to the question "what would have happened had the Nazis won the war"? The answer comes from the "taking sides" approaches of the last few days. If we took sides with the Nazis, as did the Germans, Italians and Japanese and had the war been won then we would have taken sides with the explanations given for the war and also the history told there after. The concentration camps would have been a big cover-up, the news would concentrate on all the Master Race propaganda and all the inflated hopes for the future of the purified and supreme human race. It would have been the best World Cup Win ever if you took sides with the Nazis (and they took sides with you).

Sometime in the future the murmurs about the concentration camps would have grown louder and maybe when the Nazi governments and their puppets were secure and the chance of unrest overcome, leaders might look back and give comment - as the Japanese might someday do. A future leader of the Nazis might look back in sincerity and say what an appalling disgrace the concentration camps were, hold an inquiry and disown his forefathers - as we have done to our forefathers who ran and exploited the African slave trade! The thing is it doesn't matter now because the job is done, the benefit gained and the disowning of our history cheap because there is no-one alive to carry the blame.

The reason for this hypothetical is to show that there is never a bad war! Like there is never a bad World Cup. It is only bad when your side loses. If your side wins the war it is a good war.

There is always an explanation for a war, otherwise how would each side persuade its people to fight for it! People don't fight unless they are either pushed into it, or they believe in it - and if they are pushed into it they tend to surrender. Starting the war Fritz believed what he was fighting for, just as the British did. Though British instincts were initially a little more sincere as had we lost we would have lost our home, while the Germans only stood to lose their pride. People say brain washing to explain terrorism, but who isn't brainwashed when it comes to killing people?

The great story of the Nazis being evil and the British being good is the oldest and most classic war myth. Along with invading armies liberating people and bringing freedom - a myth which dates back to Alexander the Great in the 4th Century BC and before. America is just using good old tried and tested war propaganda that has been in circulation for thousands of years. While I'm on that subject some trivia - "You are either with us or against us" comes not from Bush but from Lenin. Axis of Evil is reference to the Axis countries that won World War I (basically British Commonwealth), but after the collapse of the Empire was rebranded as the League of Nations, and then expanded to United Nations. A huge football team has been created which keeps buying up players in the hope that eventually there will be only one team and everyone will be supporting the same global multi-national team... and that team owned and governed by US elected individuals.

So eventually I get to the point. Wars are created when people take sides. Fights, disputes, inequalities, injustices and basically suffering happens when people take sides. Your side may win the war, but the other side suffers. Now if people will take sides then it is probably a good thing that we all take the same side. But, that is fraught with subtle problems. What good is supporting a football team that never plays? If the US is never involved in battles and wars, what is the meaning of being "on side" - being with them - taking their side? A world leader must be involved in continual struggles to order to highlight its friends, its support and therefore its dominance. If everyone came on side and there were no more world conflicts then how could America claim to be dominant? It would have to endlessly over step the mark and stir up trouble just in order to exert its force and create a game for its supporters to take sides in.

The true way as taught by all spiritual leaders I know of, is not to take sides. Jesus most spectaculary didn't take sides. He let the Romans crucify him, he didn't take up arms against them, he didn't call down angels to destroy the Romans, he didn't hate them, "forgive them for they know not what they do", he peacefully let them destroy him. We don't take up arms and fight against another side that wants to destroy us, because such action is evil. If someone attacks us we turn the other cheek (remember the teaching), we don't defend one side. If someone attacks our family, friends, nation, or world we turn the other cheek. We do NOT take sides and fight against them.

This clears up for me a mystery. I have always known that I should not kill, but there are many situations where it seems I "have" to kill although I can't see why. I now realise there is never a reason to kill. If a solution arises which involves killing then it is the wrong solution.

It means that when a country is invaded it must not defend itself. We have living evidence of this in Tibet where the Dalai Lama has strictly prohibited any resistence to the Chinese occupation. It is not a peaceful occupation it involves all the usual humiliations and provocations to fight that accompany such human violence - children being raped and killed in front of parents, children being forced to kill their parents - every abomination and disgrace possible. But, the Tibetans (who have done the same thing in their time so they are not innocent) have bravely suffered it all in silence. That I now believe is the correct action.

All soldiers are therefore being misled into believing they are correct to be fighting. If a soldier is reading this there is no disgrace in completing the commission, it is an unparalleled service you perform; a brave, honourable and distinguised act to lay your life down for the benefit of other people. I am in no way worthy to question you. And, if you have to kill the enemy, as you will, then so be it. It is not your fault you may have been misled. But do not renew the contract and renounce violence at the first opportunity.

If British and American soldiers lay down their weapons, and if Al-Qaeda soldiers lay down their weapons, or Taleban, or Sri-Lankan soldiers do the same then that is peace. It is no good saying well we don't trust them to do it, because they are saying the same. We just need to do it. By the same token if no-one ever joined the army then that would be the instant end of war.

So no armies. The enormous riches of the West become left open to attack. Terrorism develops, theft expands - people being mugged, banks being robbed. Companies and governments being held to ransom by threats of violence - and all in the knowledge that there will be no violent response.

Yes it is true that there are greedy people who prefer to just take what they want without wondering where it came from and without concern for other people. In many ways that irresponsible spirit has been stirred up in the worlds people by the endless promises of the "free" West.

It isn't FREE! people have to work bloody hard to get it like this. That is the message we need to send around the world. If you want to be rich then work bloody hard like the Chinese, or get someone else to do it. People sitting in sweat shops trying to get rich, to be like the West, are only doing the work that makes the West rich, not themselves - WAKE UP. The conveyor belt they are peddling is actually making the riches on TV that they want - the most profound donkey and carrot scenario where the more the donkey walks the bigger the carrot gets, but they never get to eat it. Riches come when you accept the burden of work and social order and by no other way, but be realistic because working in an agrarian economy isn't going to buy you a car maybe a new buffalo at best.

The thieves are the threat. The people who take more than they give, those who pollute the environment and leave it for future generations to clear up, those who take the worlds resources and leave none for the future, those who exploit periods of boom economy without shoring up for the future, those who plan for short term political gains again without concern for the future, those who set unfair international trade policies like the US or UK Agricultural Subsides, those who cut corners on manufacturing or who build in obsolescence to ensure the customer has to return for more or pay for repair, and of course the classic thieves who use coersion and violence like the British empire or the local gang.

The world it is true is not suited to non-violence. If we stopped using violence then we would lose a very great deal. The lesson from Tibet is that non-violence as the Dalai-Lama said takes "a very long time" and we are impatient. I don't think people would want to open the UK borders and risk showing the world a soft side. There are enough problems at the moment with the influx of imigrants looking for an easy life and turning to crime to get it. And with elements of the Islamic world deciding that US is "the enemy" of Islam and the enemy of what is Good and Just and therefore UK by association. The foundations simply have not been set for non-violence.

Which means that very much the foundations have been set for violence. The current policies of the West are built for violence. Encouraging people to take sides. Making a poor world and a rich world, a civilised and uncivilised world, a world we can kill and a world we can't kill, a good world and a bad world, an US and THEM world.

Before we can turn to non-violence then, we must turn to an inclusive world. It should be no stretch of the governments imagination to spend a moment thinking about the rest of the world. The US seems to spend most of its time worrying about the rest of the world, and Mr Blair in addition to saving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is now saving the people of Africa (cynical and I suggest with less sincerity than Geldof and Hewson) so why can't he extend this to our general overseas package .

"UK is a country which offers its people much of what they want, and does so not at the expense of other people, but through good government, economy, hard work and harmony. We can help you do the same. Don't expect life here to be easy, we only offer an infrastructure for your dreams, but get an education and return home and put the work into a better world there also. And we will be only too happy to help."

This belief in Nation is not just a game politicians create to get us on side for their wars, they really believe it. The political system encourages it. Mr Bush was voted by the American people to represent the American people. He forgets this when he takes the destiny of Iraq, the Middle East or Afghanistan into his (their) hands. A leader is NOT just responsible for his voting public, he is clearly responsible for the World as the current environmental issues are also highlighting. "Nation" is an obsolete word, we should not fight for our nation, and politicians should not operate in the interests of a nation but of the world. The voting public should not expect politicians to look after only them either - we need to change to. If interest rate increases suit us, but would cripple countries with debts to the World Bank (as happens) then we should consider not raising rates, or offering leniency to such debtors.

The next time there is a plane crash it matters not what nationality the dead were, but only that they were people. Such national thinking is evil it does violence to people and must change if we are stop violence.

If we are ever to live in a peaceful world we must resist taking sides. Neither our side nor the other side. We should not take the side of Tibet against the Chinese, and we should not take the side of China against the Tibetans. We should not take the side of the British against the Nazis and we should not take the side of the Nazis against the British. Neither the side of the Blacks against the Racists nor the Racists against the Black. Neither the side of the US against Terrorists nor the side of Terrorists against US. It is simple - never take sides, this is not a football game but real.

For that reason as from today I am convinced (despite once looking at a commission in the army) that I will never fight for any reason and any nation. I will also never support anyone in fighting for any reason or for any nation. I will not support any government (even that of my home) in defence or attack. I will not however attack anyone for use of violence, but will seek peaceful means to diffuse violent events and encourage others to do the same. I will offer only tolerance and acceptance of violence.

It means also in the personal world I will do the same. I will nor defend myself in arguments or when I am insulted. I will not agree with people when they attack or insult other people. I will actively seek to avoid violence and seek ways of diffusing violence by non-violent means. If people steal from me, or wrong me in anyway I will not use force to reset the situation but give them what they want and let them wrong me. I would hope at some stage to encourage them to reconsider what they have gained from violence and whether there was a non-violent way.

That is a clear stage in this enquiry about life.

DO NOT TAKE SIDES.

DO NOT USE VIOLENCE.

5 Sept 2006