Problem Solving

Featured

The Problem Problem

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The problem with problems is that their solution requires skilful analysis and creativity.

This is obvious except – who teaches problem solving? Overcoming difficulties is something we expect children to ‘pick up’, as learnt behaviour. By the time we reach adulthood, overcoming complex challenges is assumed to have been mastered. Yet, the problems that we encounter through life, if not solved properly, can have just a devastating effect on our lives as a metaphorical bomb. It is the same for those in charge of large corporations and governments who are known to rely on learning from failure as a somehow justifiable, problem solving technique. The joker advises, ‘try everything until something works’.

There is a story which you are likely to know, about a group of people in a dark room describing an elephant. Each holds and touches a different part of the elephant, which stands patiently; wondering where the light switch is. At the end of their examination each describes the unique part of the elephant that they have examined. None of the participants has an overview of what the whole elephant looks like, so they are all wrong.

It’s a wise story. What it tells us is that everything is not as it appears. Many things are extremely complex and far larger than our expectations and experience and greater than our abilities to interact with them constructively.

As we go through a physical life on planet Earth, we are constantly challenged. The material world is in a constant state of entropy, causing repeated and unexpected disruption, such as your car breaking down or your body ageing.

Because we are human, our ego’s present us with a story about ourselves which says optimistically, ‘I can cope’ or pessimistically ‘I have to die sometime’. If we took a step back and looked at the problems humans suffer, our sense of ‘everything’s alright’ would be replaced humility without pessimism.

Religions have picked up on this and many require the congregation to fall to their knees in the face of that elephant that sits in our minds; vanity.

Yet, is it not courageous to look adversity in the face and smile? There is an archetype of this model which is ‘the hero’. He or She is a humble human who manages to overcome all sorts of impossible problems and captures the prize! Whether this is Odysseus on his epic voyage or Superman defending New Yorkers; heroes have super natural knowledge and powers.

Or do they?

In native communities, education of children consists of physically showing them the problems of bush-life and how to overcome them. An Australian First Nation child will be shown how to collect honey from trees without being attacked by bees and leaving enough for the colony to survive.

But in modern fast changing societies, complex problems are expected to be solved by those who have no prior instruction or experience. Government ministers frequently display an extraordinary naivety when it comes to their principal role, which is to allocate resources and make laws that solve society’s problems.

The examples are numerous. In the UK and many other nations, people are landing on beaches and demanding asylum; as is their right in most countries. The ‘sticks and carrots’ that have led them there are numerous and complex.

Attempts by nation states such as Spain, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom to ‘stop the boats’, take hold of merely the elephants tail whilst imagining the little tassel on the end is the elephant. One government suggested that a threat of deportation to a third country will stop people reaching their shores in unsafe boats. Another political party takes hold of the metaphorical elephant’s leg and suggests that putting the organisers in jail will stop the problem; which again will not be ineffective because the elephant is not a leg.

In the Middle East, you have to ask what problem Israel’s government is currently trying to solve with open hostility against it’s neighbours. Problems of the people of the tribe Judea go back millennia, yet the Zionist government repeatedly tries to argue that the present problems started on 7 October 2024. Were it so simple to be true. Were the whole truth be known.

When the Sars-2 Covid virus was ‘mysteriously’ released in 2021/22, the problem was not examined in full, and when a solution was required, the pharmaceutical companies were able to react almost immediately. Inquiries into the response to the pandemic uncover ineffective, wildly expensive responses. Countries that did almost nothing like Sweden, and much of Africa came out the best.

The ‘Do Do’ was a bird that flourished on the island of Mauritius until humans appeared in wooden sailing ships. The hapless birds wandered around in a dream, not expecting to be eaten by hungry sailors. The flightless birds had failed to solve their problem. The Portuguese word ‘do do’ means ‘stupid’ which the birds were not, but victims of those who should have understood sustainability.

Today, humans are facing similar population collapse or even extinction from multiple directions.

In my view, oligarchs and corporations, secret societies, media moguls, ‘big pharma’, the military industrial complex, and international criminal organisations exploit human weakness of poor problem solving by deliberately making problems. Interference in elections, rumour and propaganda, distortion of truth, psychological warfare, hacking, negative suggestion, assassination by ‘dirty tricks’, creating riot and unrest, reducing and disrupting food supplies, and many other techniques, are deployed against unwary populations. All whilst any government that genuinely cares for it’s citizens, is running to catch up.

Understanding the causes of problems is the first step to find a solution. The problem must be understood in every aspect of it’s nature and origin, in a unbiased and factual manner. Then a tested solution that is ‘cost benefit’ proven, has to be found and implemented in a timely manner.

When examining the many problems today, all over the world, you might expect a supposedly neutral and unbiased organisation such as the United Nations to have a department that is expert in defining and solving problems. The Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly are ideally placed to work in this way, and yet world problems continue to cascade out of control. The United Nations has bravely spoken out early about the genocide in Palestine, but has not stopped it.

Stopping a descending spiral of harm, characteristic of weak problem solving, becomes a battle with a Giant, that even global organisations with their huge resources can not win.

Have we put the Do Do’s in charge?

Featured

White Hat Black Hat

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

In conversation with a friend of mine whose ethical values follow Buddhist philosophy, I was challenged with the idea of killing the mosquitoes in my bedroom at night with a pungent insecticide! ‘It is wrong to kill anything and I should be using a mosquito net to defend myself, not attack’.

To me, if I kill a mosquito, I am preventing it from attacking another person or animal with it’s uncomfortable sting and potential disease transmission, including malaria, dengue fever, Zika virus, chikungunya, yellow fever, West Nile virus, and Eastern Equine Encephalitis. The virus, bacteria or parasite with the disease varies with location in the world of course, however with climate change and species of mosquito: do you feel lucky?

The instruction to preserve life at all costs and in whatever guise, is of course, a dogma contained in many religions but not all. In Christianity the Holy Bible includes the Old Testament describing a blood bath of unholy wars. In the last two hundred years or so, ‘civilised’ humans interpreted Genesis 1,

( And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,)

– -as a licence to kill sentient creatures for sport, vanity and greed.

Even today, western ‘civilisations’ are in the same process of destroying the planet with great efficiency and little conscience. There is a possibility that the translators of the Old Testament should have used ‘steward’ of nature instead of ‘dominion’.

Historically, the planet was not seen as a benign mother in the nineteenth century, except by those who lived close to nature such as the North American First Nation People who were regarded as ‘savages’ by European invaders. Ironically, self styled ‘settlers’ regarded themselves as benign and entitled to lie, break treaties, enter sacred land and commit genocide through war and starvation – all whilst insisting they have moral superiority.

Does this remind you of anything happening today by countries who consider themselves beyond reproach for their actions?

In the ancient Hebrew Ten Commandments we find the instruction not to kill. This was probably meant to refer to human v human – but does it? Could this include insects and small mammals? Like all simplifications, it loses import through lack of detail.

Buddhist teachings could be interpreted that one should have no ‘intention’ to kill. If we kill a virus with our anti-bodies or an ant on the path where we walk without even knowing or controlling this, we are not at fault. To kill to prevent disease or disease spreading is not so plain. We venture then into the quandry of the lesser of two evils.

Because of contradiction and complexity or perhaps, despite of it, religious dogma encourages the following of rules ad absurdum. An example would be nuns of the Jaine religion who spend their days walking and sweeping the path in front of them lest they tread on an insect.

Whilst there is a continuum of intent between conscious and unconscious killing, we have to agree that conscious killing raises the ethical questions. Those who refuse to fight in a national army might agree to become stretcher bearers or another ‘non-combatant’ role. This even though their actions are supporting those who are fighting and killing. ‘Thou shalt not kill, directly or indirectly’ would have been a more relevant commandment to conscientious objectors in any war in my view.

Why would any country seek to start a war, and feel justified morally, is a very relevant question for today. A common cause and justification is the belief that a moral duty of ‘doing good’ is being fulfilled. The irony of this is when both or several parties in a war all use this excuse. Who wears the white hat?

The answer can generally be found through the actions rather than words such as ‘treaties’ and ‘ceasefires’. It used to be that soldiers would fight soldiers and civilian populations were only indirectly affected by war. But since the second World War, technology such as aerial bombardment from the air; drones, rockets and heavy artillery, civilians have become targets.

picture credit: Rocket Guest Hosting

Both or all sides will see themselves as the wearers of the ‘white hat’. Their next ethical choice is to decide the target. Should it be military or civilian? Although the choice is obvious to all but the most morally challenged, much of the warfare we see today is aimed at civilian populations. The offending side continue to lie and break treaties and ceasefires, enter sacred land and commit genocide as if they were actors in the nineteenth century ‘Wild West’ in which religious or any kind of law, did not exist.

To do this they use words in order to confuse themselves and their followers. Military terms such as ‘offence’ and ‘defence’ sound as if their meanings are simple. But take an example from the Roman Army in ancient times. They carried large shields which are technically, purely defensive. But one of their fighting techniques was to use the shield to rush at the enemy and push them off balance, opening their guard and going for the kill. The short sword or gladius was used principally as a weapon of offence, and yet again, a sword fight includes using the sword in defence, as a shield.

picture credit: ECUCBA

Defence and offence therefore overlap and at times – become one. Politicians can over rule moral objections by calling this one something and the other something else. It is called ‘propaganda’. In this way offence using defence is called defence and defence using offence is called defence. Making use of this confusion in minds who do not question, they argue that since ‘defence’ is allowed in international law, every action is a ‘defence’ even when attacking unarmed women and children.

Leaders today deny or are complicit in targeting civilians, just as the Soviet Union did under the absolute dictator, Joseph Stalin in the Second World War.

After that war, Winston Churchill, the Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to replace Stalin’s ‘white hat’ (Russia had been an important ally) with a black one under ‘Operation Unthinkable’. They wanted to return Poland to the Polish people as that issue had started the war but Stalin refused and the country became part of the Soviet Union.

History has the ability to make sense of current events as world politics has usually been played out before and the consequences of actions do not have to be learnt through experience. The main variable is of course, new technology. But fundamentally, ethical values should not change and there is not reason why an aversion to violence should not be universal. This has been attempted through the United Nations and International Law but these voices are weak today.

‘War crimes’ being allegedly committed are investigated by those committing the crimes. Permanent members of the UN Security Council are allowed vetoe criticism of their actions on the grounds that they are ‘defending’ someone or something. Detail is avoided.

International Laws are dismissed by countries that have not signed the convention. So external rules, which should embody the highest ethical values, are ineffective.

Where civil laws and natural law fail to be applied, religious and spiritual rules, potentially have a greater influence by bringing about change within each individual. The rule supporting non-violence is the well known, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ It’s an uncomplicated way to behave but, with this injunction as guidance and followed, the world today would be a very different place.

Featured

Beyond Good and Evil

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Genesis gives us the key to opening the door to everything. All we have to accept is that stories in Holy books almost certainly operate at many different levels beyond what is taught to children in Sunday School.

In the story of the original humans in the Garden of Eden, God ‘opens the eyes’ of Adam and Eve as punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. For in doing so their eyes are opened to the concept of ‘good and evil’, but we should not be side tracked by wondering what good and evil are. What is being revealed here, in my view, is that the Unity Consciousness of the blissful Garden, split into binary consciousness. If the reader overlooks the reference to newly realised binary opposites, then the message is repeated for reinforcement.

When Adam and Eve see each other naked, for the first time, their consciousness moves from being one, to two. This ‘same but different’ paradox between men and women is the same for all binary thoughts and words. Carl Jung suggested that the minds of men and women differ as metaphorically expressed by the nuanced differnces of their bodies.

The message in Genesis, is not about ‘good’ or ‘evil’ or ‘man’ or ‘woman’; it’s about binary thought; a fataly flawed characteristic.

But thinking in opposites creates an illusion of understanding. This is whispering serpent’…the one that slides down the ladders of thought.

In physics, nothing is black and white; there is just light and an absence of light and everything in between. But using opposites as a sort of ‘algebra’ for thought has enabled modern scientists to deconstruct nature and use it’s methods to make technology.

Batteries consist of negative and positive poles. The brain consists of left and right hemispheres. Breath goes in and out. Humans are born and die. Chromosomes are X and Y.

This is how have un-zipped the polarities that keeps atoms spinning, but there is a catch!

Our thoughts attach to the oversimplified opposites. Left and Right political views are a prime example of extremist views plunging the world into chaos. Edward de Bono introduced the non-binary word Po in his book Beyond Yes and No to express infinite possibility and a practical key to freedom of thought.

Opposite ideas should only ever be a mere framework for rational thought, otherwise the space in between disturbs ‘certainty’, leading to confusion and conflict. Consider a recent example;

In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court has just ruled that a woman is a person who was born a ‘biological woman’. In other words, a ‘biological man’ cannot become a woman. This rule provides clarity for the lawyers; but is it true?

I would argue that the model does not fit neatly over reality. When it comes to the provision of public toilets, there will need to be a ‘third space’ for those with particular needs, for instance, those who feel different to their biological gender.

Is not an impossible problem for many ‘third spaces’ already exist as a ‘disabled toilet’. All that is needed now is a gender neutral sign on the door. Something that is not ‘men’ or ‘women’.

We see here that humans are not as simple as the rule of two ‘opposite’ biological genders. Consider the complexity of the body. We have a brain with left and right hemispheres. Each half has a nuanced contrast of functions; rational and creative respectively. Psychologically, each woman has an unconscious animus and each man has an unconscious anima. One in ten of us are left handed; the rest right. In some cultures, left is ‘evil’ and right ‘good’. There have been libraries written on the complexities of gender differences.

But we also experience a range of emotions, almost involuntarily, which can be categorised as ‘expansive’ or ‘passive’ in nature. Anger and valour are expansive and ‘male’, sadness and tenderness are ‘female’ emotions, for example. Of course, men and women have the whole range of emotions in varying degrees beneath the fig leaf.

Finally, the subtlest human characteristic that guides mind, heart and body is ‘intuition’. Albeit a peaceful, almost silent, internal voice, it has a function to guide us when we are lost. Another name for intuition is Soul, and yes, souls can be ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as illustrated in the Old Testament. There is a Bible story in which Joseph experienced wise, prophetic dreams. His soul’s ability to describe the future intuitively through the pathway of dreams is symbolised by his ‘coat of many colours’. Dream messages are not black and white, but as subtle as a colour from the subtle spectrum of light.

This level of subtlety is desperately needed today, in my view, if humankind is ever going to recreate the Garden of Eden on earth through deep compassion and understanding. If we do not, a Wasteland awaits.

Who is the third who walks always beside you? When I count there are only you and I together, but when I look ahead up the white road, there is always another one walking beside you, Gliding wrapped in a brown mantle, hooded. I do not know whether a man or a woman – but who is that on the other side of you?

What the Thunder Said (from line 359) from The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot

Featured

An Annual Review

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Am I Right?

At the end of several years of Matters Blog, it’s time for a review. As complex as life is, my aim is to express opinions based on common sense rather than personal or political bias. Not only that, but to suggest original and innovative solutions many of which have not been taken from the public domain.

The famous Dunning Kruger Effect states that amateur pundits have a false self image of themselves as knowing it all, while experts constantly doubt. So how did I do?

In 06 August 2018 I identified the shortage of affordable housing in the United Kingdom as a problem and offered a solution. My suggestion was that houseboats are moored on the UK’s inland waterways, rivers and lakes. They avoid the purchase of land and as temporary structures can be removed or replaced as needed. They can be built more quickly than a house and provided in enough numbers would create a stop gap whilst houses are built. The housing crisis had not been addressed by the previous government and the new government is intent on more building houses even though there are not the tradesmen to do it.

In 31 July 2021 the blog ‘HS2 Where?’ listed twenty reasons, including cost, on why the proposed high speed train route between London and Northern cities in England was doomed to failure. In 2024 the Conservative government reduced it’s reach to just Birmingham on the grounds of cost.

In 09 February 2019 I wrote a questionnaire for people who voted for Brexit. Apparently they were insulted at the suggestion they did not understand the consequences of Brexit. The questionnaire was intended to highlight the multi level complexity of the process and predictable effects of the UK leaving the European Union. When Brexiteers are asked today what the benefits of Brexit have been, few list any precise benefit. They say they no longer have to obey EU law and have gained ‘Sovereignty’. Ask how this has affected their lives and they will struggle to give an example.

In my blogs ‘Let Me In’ parts one and two in June 2022 and ‘Head for the Hills’ in December 2022, I examined immigration into the UK via unsuitable boats. The last Tory government made this problem a priority but chose a non-viable solution in an expensive plan to send unsuccessful asylum seekers to Rwanda. The slogan of intention missed out the detail of ‘how to stop the boats’ while their policy probably did the opposite. My suggestions included allowing asylum applications to be made from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world. That hasn’t happened but the new Labour government have pledged to close down the people trafficking gangs which I also had suggested was long overdue.

In 22 October 2023, I published a blog I had written a week earlier following the attack on Israeli defence forces and civilians by Hammas titled Shalom, Salaam, Peace. I suggested that Hammas, as the vastly inferior force to the IDF, had no means to destroy Israel and were instead baiting Israel to over react to attack. Any ‘destruction of Israel’ would be done by the other Arab nations in defence of the people of Gaza, such as Iran. Since then the Iran backed Houthis in Yemen have taken up this role and significant others. I suggested an Arab leader would appear to take on Israel which has not yet happened.

In 20 February 2023 I wrote a parable called The Holy Forest about the politics of the Holy Land and how Israel will one day realise why people resent and hate the actions of successive Israeli Zionist Governments. I further commented on a better solution to bombing in Gaza as being the use of a multinational force of Special Forces to clear Hammas out of Gaza in my blog War Without End in October 24. To date the tactics of the Israeli Zionist government have not changed or met their stated aims of saving the hostages and destroying Hammas. I called out the genocide of the Palestinian early on in the process and qouted the Israeli post WW2 mantra of ‘Never Again’.

These and other blogs allowed me as an observer to suggest descriptions of complexity and apply problem solving techniques without using the techniques of over simplification, project fear and the illusionist’s destraction.

So thank you to those who click the ‘like’ button and may 2025 give us all hope my observations will become shorter and shorter as those in charge of us work smarter and harder for the benefit of those they serve.

Featured

The Road to Hell

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

…is ‘paved with good intentions..,’

Dualistic thinkers (thinking using opposite terms such as black and white) have a problem with the idea of good and evil. Most spend their lives seeking goodness and avoiding evil. It’s a well intended strategy and one promoted extensively by Christians. Jesus the Christ spent forty days and nights resisting temptation by the ‘prince of the world’…the Devil.

The problem is, life is not so simple as good and bad…would that it were! Would that Western thinkers looked over the shoulders of Eastern philosophers who believe that there is no such thing as pure goodness, nor pure evil. (The corollary is that there is no Heaven and no Hell which is also true but perhaps the subject for another essay.)

In the Yin Yang symbol, which is central to Eastern philosophy, good contains a little touch of evil and evil a nudge of good. Sometimes goodness may just be a thin shell containing a large quantity of evil and visa versa. An example might be the Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in the second World War. The world would be a better place if that technology had never existed. What you see, is not always what you get.

The past can provide valuable lessons but here I shall use some examples of ‘dualistic thought’ from current Western political debate; there is a tempting assortment to choose from!

The first woe is, ‘Generalisation’. Politicians are by definition, strategists; taking a broad view and delegating attention to detail to minions. They are therefore prone to declare noble ‘aims’ to please voters, such as to ‘reduce inflation, help the vulnerable, create jobs, improve public services’ etc. etc.

What is not presented for examination is how this aim is going to be achieved.

As an example of using the wrong ‘means’, the previous government in the United Kingdom made an election commitment to ‘stop the boats’. This referred to undocumented migrants crossing the English Channel in dangerously unsuitable boats. This aim was presented as ‘good’ because there had been boats sinking and people tragically drowning. The government’s intention was ‘good’; to save life. If the means to stop the boats was challenged, the questioner was accused of wanting people to drown; they were supporting evil over good. The argument was totally dualistic and as a result over simplistic.

Pretending to be a benign policy without hiding the real reason

The absurdity is that any problem solving plan can be justified as ‘moral’ and ‘benign’ whether it was likely to work or not. It just needs a ‘good’ intention or aim and expects never to be challenged on any other grounds.

The detailed plan to ‘stop the boats’ intended to send failed UK asylum seekers to Rwanda. The plan included breaking international law and expense that did not match the benefit. Worse still it was based on an untested assumption that those willing to risk death by drowning would be put off by a comfortable flight across Africa to free food, health care and accommodation in sunny Rwanda. Asylum seekers from Rwanda would probably not be so pleased as it’s not a safe country by most definitions (but that was a level of complexity too deep to examine). The final cost of this plan was the same as putting up each asylum seeker in the Ritz Hotel in London; an option the Ritz would probably have declined.

My point is that however absurd the detailed plan, the government would repeat it’s justification by asking, ‘do you want people to continue to drown in the English Channel?’ as if that were the only option to achieve their well intentioned aim. Of course it was not the only option but presented as such. In the end the plan was abandoned and hundred of millions of pounds metaphorically thrown into the English Channel at a time when the lack of money in the countrie’s coffers was also a problem.

The new Labour government are now desperately trying to balance the books by not giving pensioners an allowance to heat their homes over the coming winter which they agree is regrettable and may cause death ( i.e. an evil ) but is justified by a need to balance the country’s books (i.e. a goodness )

When politicians are not generalising they present details to prove or disprove a generalisation. A prime example appeared in the news this week during the televised debate between candidates for the forthcoming presidential elections in the U.S. of A.

In this debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, Trump purported that migrants were eating the pets of American citizens in Springfield, Ohio. The response of Harris was the only rational one, which was to giggle. Apparently, this story was currently feeding the confirmation bias of social media zealots, which included a person who considers himself fit to rule the world. Fact checkers and local officials confirmed that the story was not true. But this does not stop those repeating it, who wish it was true.

The problem for those caught up in such an argument is that there may have been just one instance of starving migrants cooking up a street animals on a cold and windy night to feed their children. In the world of political debate not using numbers or arguing over whether numbers are true or not, allows generalisations to pass critical examination because even if there is only one instance, the general statement becomes true, even if totally misleading. It’s a gift to politicians.

picture credit: Peakpx

At the beginning of this essay I referred to eastern philosophy as tending to take a holistic view of events, rather than focus on a particular set of facts. In Surah Al-Khaf in the Holy Quran, Moses meets a figure not named but described as a righteous servant of God possessing great wisdom. Moses watches him damage a humble fisherman’s boat and protests despite being sworn not to question any thing he witnesses. In time, an army passes in need of such boats and ignores the damaged one. The fisherman is able to repair the damage and keeps his boat and his livelihood. There follows other stories where actions are ‘evil’ at first sight, but as circumstances develope, are shown to have been benign.

In conclusion, our world at the present time is full of major choices about which we hear politicians of all persuasions expounding strong views. As humble citizens we have little say in these matters and have to trust those promoting ‘good’ and denouncing the ‘bad’.

Decisions are for reasons suggested above, and in my view, never such a clear cut choice. We assume we make choices based on hard facts, reasonableness and clear routes to known consequences. I contest this assumption and suggest we take a more pragmatic view, summed up in the simple word ‘maybe’.

Featured

The Party is Over

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The Last Supper?

A dictionary definition of the ‘standard of living’ is ‘the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community’. It is not clear from this short description what is included in the concept other than a level of ‘comfort’. We might think that globally people have adequate essentials of life; food, shelter, water, health…but we know wealth is not evenly distributed.

It follows that not everyone on planet Earth will enjoy the same degree of ‘comfort’. There is an extended range from ‘in dire need of comfort’ to ‘having comfort in excess’.

When watching news reports of natural events that have devastated communities in countries with a low standard of, one feels for the victims. But looked at another way, these communities as used to living with little more than the basics. Their frail houses can be rebuilt. If they are lucky, aid tides them over until crops can be harvested again. What I mean is that this is not total devastation. Such people are survivors because they live simply. Inuit hunters, when given quartz watches, threw them away. When asked why, they replied that they were unable to repair them. It’s a wise principle. Round the world sailors know their boats intimately for the same reason.

In contrast, the ‘city dwellers’ of the world are not survivors. If farm land turns into a desert, as happened in the ‘dust bowl’ in 1930’s United States of America, mass hunger and even death within ‘sophisticated’ populations will result. They are, in the words of the Beatles song, “Urban Spacemen”.

picture credit: science.smith.edu

Most people are aware of the global threats to the citizens of planet Earth in the twenty-first century. We have had a ‘pandemic’ and more may follow, we observe the alarming effects of climate change and it’s consequences such as food shortages and habitat destruction, we have localised wars erupting in different parts of the world and mass migration because of all of these things and others.

When Elon Musk talks of moving to other planets, he must be inferring that there is a strategy to sustain the homo sapien sapiens after global catastrophe. Good luck getting a ticket to ride.

We know that humans have survived global catastrophe before. There are meant to have been at least six global disasters wiping out most of life, but not all. The underground cities found in places like northern Turkey are evidence of how a small number of humans survived.

Kaymakli Underground City Turkey

This time though, high tech city dwellers who casually dial up for food on their phones, are not likely to make underground cities. With half of the world’s population living in cities, the question we should be asking ourselves is, ‘how can we prevent disaster?’

We can all make a difference by taking personal responsibility for the likely causes of a catastrophe. One individual can change the world, however rarely you hear this affirmation. There is a story of a child throwing a stranded star fish back into the sea. When questioned what difference the action made the child answered that it made a difference to the starfish.

Every holiday, every sending of goods and foodstuffs around the world, every activity that involves burning carbon based fuels is, however slightly, connected to the tornado or mudslide or nuclear waste release. Governments appear powerless to prevent destructive human behaviour whilst natural disasters will happen with little encouragement.

Have we believed the ‘cornflake family’ myth that television presented as a social aspiration in the 1960’s? The clichéd happy family. Whilst the USA was busy consuming 25% of the world’s resources, the rest of the world was struggling to mimic the same mistake of non sustainable lifestyles.

picture credit: Resilience.org

A Swedish statistician, the late Hans Roslin described a process of increasing global wealth very lucidly in a TED lecture titled ‘Global Population Growth’ using IKEA boxes. He suggested a general rise in the standard of living even if that was merely a transition from flip flops to a bicycle and from bicycles to holidays abroad. Improved birth control and higher wages lead to smaller families, which stalls the global population rise at 9 or 10 billion, and it may then fall.

The argument is interesting but worryingly fails to take into account the ‘threat’ aspect in a ‘strength, weakness, opportunity, threat’ analysis. What is the point of building a brick house for you family is the sea level rises and floods the land? The threats to an improved global standard of living are so complex in quantity and quality that they can only be left to self adjust in a radical manner…meaning disaster.

China and India and other countries are set on ‘industrialisation’ at any cost and critics in the West are not in a strong moral position to criticise. Something has been attempted to build a cockpit in this out of control vehicle, namely the annual COP talks.

If governments bring about the promises they make at the ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) talks – to create a viable future for earth’s future inhabitants – so much the better, but this is by no means certain. The levers and pulleys needed for change on a global scale should have been pulled decades ago and, sadly, were not.

What you will not hear from COP is the conclusion that the economic concept of ever increasing ‘standards of living’ was always a myth because it was unsustainable on a global scale. No single planet can support infinite demand using a finite resources. The COP party conferences are, in my view, overseeing the end of the last supper of consumerism and comfort.

‘Forgive them, for they know not what they do.’

Featured

Defence?

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

It’s all violence

At some point in it’s evolution, humanity has to decide whether to accept violence or not.

At present, it appears we accept violence within certain rules. We say that if you did not initiate the violence, then you can be violent towards the aggressor, to any degree. This is called ‘self defence’ and few can think of an alternative. But why should defence be more morally right than attack? Can either be justified? What is the difference, morally?

Suppose you were a citizen of the United States of America and you own a gun and know how to use it. You are woken in the middle of the night by a noise downstairs. You arm yourself and go down to investigate. You see a dark figure and shoot. At this moment you believe you are acting in self defence, as is your right. You switch on the lights and to your horror you see the body of your teenage son lying on the floor. He was creeping back into the house after a secret night drinking with his friends. This is not fiction. This happens.

Just because the law enables a gun to be the solution to your ‘problem’, was this the only solution? Were there other more proportionate actions you could have taken? Yes, you could have switched on the light before you shot at a higher risk to your own life, or you could have called the police. You could have just done nothing. Each approach is problematic but only one invites heart break.

I lived in a country where only specialist police carry guns, England. Good peace keepers should be skilled at talking down a potentially violent situation. It’s a technique and can be learnt. Now many officers carry a Taser non-lethal gun as well as non-lethal CS gas. Non-lethal is a practical half way to non-violence.

Between attack and defence there are a thousand grey variations. The best option is always somewhere between total war and total defence; not either or. Ultimately they both are characteristics of the same thing; violence.

Fortunately most sovereign countries do not attack each other and a state of peace exists. But we know that peace is a fragile situation, where historical, economic and political rivalry bubbles away under the surface like a dormant volcano. Violence has to be contained for peace to exist and this is created using ‘deterrence’. Joining forces with another group of nations is one method of deterring attack. Not being a threat is another and here we realise that it is impossible to deter another nation without them being scared of you. Russia is presently in this conundrum with it’s relationship to NATO countries.

We watched as Russia reached a tipping point and claimed that Ukraine had a Fascist army. Historically, the communists (Soviet Union) and fascists (Nazi Germany) were enemies and this history still clearly carries some import as ‘justification’. By fighting ‘fascists’ Putin possibly feels he has his predecessors moral high ground on his shoulder. Coupled with a perceived threat from an expanding NATO and Ukraine moving towards joining the European Union; Putin is clever though and he does not use the word ‘war’ or ‘attack’. He insists he is acting in ‘self defence’ to NATO’s growing threat and his military action is just a ‘special operation’.

Words are master deceivers and suit Putin well. Because two words, ‘attack’ and ‘defence’ are the same thing; a resort to violence is claimed to be justified.

Zionist politicians in Israel have more or less done the same thing. They have an historical antagonism towards the people of Palestine whom they have been squeezed into smaller and smaller enclaves. Any similarity between this and the Warsaw Ghetto in the Second World War is of course, purely coincidental. The question is whether Palestinian or Isaraeli fighters are defending their country by attacking their neighbour. Defence quickly escalates into violent action that can get wildly out of control. The question of ‘proportionate’ use of violence (an eye for an eye) is the current debate.

So how can non-violence ever replace violence? The answer is it probably can’t whilst humans are attached to a materialistic and territorial lifestyle which they guard with weapons. In this respect humans are less sophisticated morally than most animals who rarely fight their own species to the death.

We learn to deal with violent conflict as children in the school playground. When we become adults we are expected to rise above violence as a solution to problems.

Two boys start fighting in the playground. A huddle of eager spectators quickly forms around them. These bystanders are too immature to try to pull the boys apart and instead encourage them. A stronger third party with moral responsibility for order is required; a teacher.

The teacher breaks up the mob and marches the two boys off to the headmasters office.

‘He started it!’ is a common defence from children. Their false logic is that when attacked there is no other response than a defensive counter attack. There is usually an option to run.

If we change the scale of our example, to that of governments and countries, you will find that ‘he started it!’ is also used as a justification for the use of violence by sovereign states. Only a third party intervention from a body with higher moral and political authority has the power to stop and settle wars. After the horrors of the second world war the League of Nations and subsequently United Nations was created to step into this role. The objective voice of world opinion should, in theory, make the warring parties ‘see sense’ and the more mature aim of seeking a peaceful resolution.

The United Nations and the United States of America, could go to the preesnt Israeli Zionist government and point out that killing innocent women and children in Gaza is morally unjustifiable. Putin could be hauled into the headteacher’s office by the United Nations, but has not.

Mahatma Gandhi lead a nation using moral authority based on non-violence. He wanted the British to leave India and for Indian people to govern themselves. His tactics using moral discipline, diplomacy and example turned out to be more powerful than the military might of the British Raj.

War was described by Carl von Clausewitz as ‘ the extension of politics by other means.’ Personally, I would be more precise and describe war as the extension of politics by violent means. This creates the logical possibility that peace is the extension of politics by peaceful means.

Of course, peace is an abstract idea and never completely exists but there is a place close to total peace which might be reached using skilled, non-lethal force.

To use a personal example, when I was a boy at school, I never sought to fight. When I was inevitably confronted aggressively, I stepped forward, put my leg behind the thigh of the aggressor and pushed him to the ground. Yes, it was violent but it only hurt a bully’s pride.

This was the extension of politics by peaceful means, meaning no one was hurt. Later in life I came across Aikido. This an unusual martial art in that it enables winning a fight without confrontation. For this reason it requires no strength and is ideal for women and the elderly.

An interesting example was given me by one of the teachers. He was on an ice-rink when he felt a hand going into his pocket and pulling out his wallet. Instinctively he grabbed the wrist of the thief and continued the forward movement of the pickpocket’s body. The result was to send him rapidly across the ice rink. In Aikido, the art is to avoid conflict using simple non-aggressive moves that eventually tire out or restrain the opponent until help arrives or submission.

City dwellers would do well to learn the tactics of pickpockets even if they do not feel able to defend themselves physically. Usually they work in teams in crowded places and choose victims carefully. This is done by the ‘spotter’. Then the thief moves in using much the tactics of the illusionist in a theatre to distract and act deftly. Then a third party intervenes by preventing escape or creating another distraction.

Governments would do well to learn from these examples at a micro scale of conflict. Having a clear aim is vital to managing any violent unsolicited action. The method of conducting the conflict and ending it with minimum force and casualties for both attacker and defender and vital. Fast and deft military moves have time and time again proved their worth on battle fields.

When Napoleon wanted to teach the Zhar of Russia a lesson for breaking their pact of unity in 1812, he formed an army and headed for Moscow. Contrary to most other opponents Napoleon had fought, the Russians did not line up and wait to be shot or cut down by flanking cavalry. Instead they conducted an extraordinary retreat, burning everything in their wake. Only when Napoleon reached Moscow did they choose their moment to swiftly counter attack. Napoleon’s army fled in disarray and only 5% of the original army returned to France.

Sun Zhu in his famous book on military tactics said, ‘engage with the ordinary, win with the extraordinary’. A little side stepping and originality can nimbly avoid a cataclysmic confrontation like Ukraine v Russia. ‘Give some ground,’ is one solution.

Special forces, such as the British Commando’s came to the forefront of military tactics in the Second World War, where small teams of four men used guerilla tactics against an unprepared enemy. Casualties for the attacking side were minimal compared to strategic gain.

Ultimately the choice is not whether to attack or defend but to avoid unecessary violence by what ever means possible. There are always alternatives that require imagination and focused problem solving techniques in exactly the same way the animals avoid killing their own species. There is no ‘perfect’ state of non-aggression where humans in their present terratorial state of consciousness are concerned. Perhaps in the future, peace will break out and violence will never be the preferred problem solving option. In the words of , ‘what if there was a war and nobody came.’

“Ah! There is the rub.”

A Samurai was famous throughout his kingdom for his skill in battle and duels. This notoriety inevitably brought unwanted attention in the form of young swordsman. They were all eager to beat this Samurai and steal his fame and title.

One day the Samurai was on a large trading ship with a number of other passengers. As he stood staring at the water, he was approached by an impetuous young swordsman. He immediately challenged the Samurai to a duel amidst a string of insults. The Samurai looked him up and down and said he was busy. The young swordsman became more effusive so the Samurai agreed to a duel on an island they were passing. He told the young man to get into the small boat being towed by the ship and they would fight on the island. The swordsman immediately slipped down the rope and looked up expectantly. The Samurai cut the rope with his sword and the young man spun away in the wake of the ship.

Featured

Solutions Without Answers

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Give a fool a hammer and the problem is a nail

Surely, your leaders and politicians must excel in one thing above all others; problem solving. I suggest this because all aspects of life are eventually about solving problems. It does not matter if you are trying to look after a home or a country, the principles of good management using skilled problem solving, are the same.

Astoundingly, the study of ‘problem solving’ is not freely available. In the academic world it is assumed that the skills learnt in schools and places of higher education are transferable to the ‘real world’. Well in my experience, I can say that most of those skills are not transferable, which is a problem in itself. Theory and practice should be salt and pepper, but they are not.

To solve a practical problem takes a special kind of thought process. Most importantly there must be a consistent intention aimed at a fruitful result. Technicians and those who learn practical ‘trades’ such as building walls with bricks or carpentry, become great problem solvers very quickly. If they make a mistake, it is plainly on view and has to be taken down and attempted again. Generally, the selection process for soldiers will involve problem solving. Recruits become part of a small team arranging logs and ropes and other props to overcome an obstacle. Real work in real time.

It is said rather cynically that ‘doctors bury their mistakes’; but it is true. It is unfortunately also true of many of today’s politicians and leaders who are entrusted with the welfare of the State and it’s citizens. If they make a wrong policy decision or invent a plan for some new project or public works that goes wrong, the failure is forgotten. Money is wasted on projects that any ordinary person would say is a waste of time and money (just read my earlier blogs on the UK High Speed train project predicting failure). Why, you might ask, does India have a Space Programme when there are thousands of villages in India without proper sanitation? I am only using India as an example. Avoiding and/or mismanagement of real and urgent problems happens in every country run by politicians with their own agendas, not the people’s

If a race of intelligent beings came down from the Planet Problemsolving, they would certainly be appalled at the ignorance of humans in a skill the PP inhabitants are taught from birth.

If humans cannot learn from present times, we can learn from history. In the Biblical era, when Herod heard there was a child to be born who would one day be King, his solution was simple and brutal. To kill all male babes under the age of two years. The solution to his problem was immoral, self centred, and ineffective. Have we improved?

Giovani: The Slaughter of the Innocents

Today, the State of Israel is being led by a person with Herod like, problem solving hypothesis. Because there are fighters who are against the State of Israel (as a consequence of decades of ill treatment towards Palestinians) Israel is using genocide to prevent further problems, just like Herod. And just as Herod assumed a massacre would get every child, so it is assumed that the Israeli government actions will eliminate every fighter who is against the Israeli State. But history tells us that using starvation, disease, killing and maiming, stopping fuel supplies in winter and stopping safe escape routes, will be condemned by world organisations like the United Nations. South Africa has emerged from apartheid in the last century and has been the loudest voice of condemnation. They have learnt from their history.

Hitler is perhaps one of the greatest despots in modern times, who used similar problem solving techniques indiscriminately. He constructed concentration camps with impregnable exterior defences, then filled them with people of direct and indirect Jewish blood. We know the rest. Indeed, the people who know this best are living in the State of Israel today.

Let us examine a less emotionally charged problem being played out over the English Channel at the moment. The problem always requires a definition and for voters in the 2016 referendum it was identified as ‘immigration’. The ‘Vote Leave’ champagne and UKIP party championed the idea that ‘immigrants are a problem to the country’, in the run up to the referendum. Whilst most economists would disagree with this concept ( the USA is a prime historical example of immigration creating prosperity ) the problem was described in emotional terms. We know that rational debate stops when emotions are stirred, if we have lived life at all! Emotional beliefs do not use constructive thinking patterns based on analysis of facts and figures. ‘Solutions’ were expressed as three word slogans such as ‘Take Back Control’, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ ‘Get Brexit Done’.

Broadcaster James O’Brien on LBC said: “I’m looking for a chronology of the meaningless slogans Brexiters used to give people an excuse not to actually look at any detail, evidence or do any thinking.”

As the supposed ‘problem’ of immigration, moved from fringe to mainstream politics, the ‘final solution’ became leaving the European Union. The principle of ‘understanding the problem’ by using statistics for instance, was ignored since only one third of UK immigrants actually came from the European Union. Many of those who did were short term immigrants, such as students and migrant workers. As the fish and chip shop owner said to me on the day of the Brexit vote in June 2016, ‘Who is going to pick my potato’s?’

But the emotions of hatred and fear were exploited using false facts by those in power (just as did the leaders of Nazi Germany) and the UK left the European Union in 2020. Since then, the ‘problem’ of immigrants has not gone away. For no obvious reason the ‘problem’ has be re-defined to be the three per cent of immigrants who enter the country without proper documentation.

Under international law these fall into three basic camps; asylum seekers escaping persecution, economic migrants and the criminal underworld. These categories however require time consuming investigation on a case by case basis.

You Can Use Old Slogans

Far simpler for the government to stir public emotions using a three word slogan which is ‘stop the boats’. Chillingly, the ‘solution’ is steered away from creating safe routes and tackling criminal gangs to being one of ‘deterrent’ or fear. By ‘fear of being sent to Rwanda’ the UK government intends to stop people from risking their lives crossing the English Channel.

The horror of this solution and all ‘final solutions’ is not characteristic of any country that wishes to hold it’s head high in the European Courts of Human Rights and the United Nations. Similarly, the government of Israel is prepared to ignore the Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. The false logic of ‘the end justifies the means’ convinces only the emotions.

The complexity of statistical analysis and testing and proof finding and ethics and morality and compassion and common sense and lessons learnt from history and comparing alternatives and cost benefit analysis, should be the bread and butter for problem solving by those who lead nations.

But complexity is ignored because it does not invite the answer, ‘yes’ or ‘no’. These two words are fundamental to what is the basis of the referendum method of problem solving.

  • Shall I kill all the male children under two years of age? Yes or no?
  • Shall I get rid of the Jews? Yes or no?
  • Shall I destroy Palestine and it’s people as a method to destroy their militant leaders? Yes or no?
  • Shall we leave the European Union? Yes or no?
  • Shall we ‘stop the boats’ by making it illegal to do so? Yes or no?

Each time the question assumes a problem with which the man on the proverbial omnibus, may not agree is a reasonable question to be asked. The question is too simple to answer for the complex mind, but easy for the simple mind.

The so called ‘wisdom of the crowd’ is not something that history proves. Wisdom is unfortunately a rare commodity – whether two thousand years ago or the present day. We only have to listen to Socrates (470-399 BC) opinion about the ‘common man’…

Socrates wisely points out that voting itself is a skill. Knowing what kinds of issues are being raised, and how best to deal with them is a real skill required to know how to best govern people. If people are not properly educated, then what ends up happening is demagoguery, which is when people exploit others’ emotions, seducing them with easy answers, so that they could be elected.

Featured

Back to the Present

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The present is the greatest gift

I visited my mechanic at his garage a few weeks ago and was surprised to find the place deserted. But an impressive Delorean sports car sat there with it’s rear engine exposed as if ready for ‘take off’. After a few moments of wonder, the garage owner appeared wiping his hands on a rag. ‘Oh!’ I said, ‘I thought you had gone back to the future!’

He didn’t laugh and had probably heard the joke all morning but it made me think on the film ‘Back to the Future’. What a nonsense premise for a story I always think. Odd that in a society that considers itself rational and scientific, writers are fascinated by illogical impossibilities and their absurd consequences. Such non-real accounts are of course, fiction, and humans have an ability that is often taken for granted; to live in factual and fictional worlds simultaneously.

Films like this such as Disney’s ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ introduce concepts of non-linear time that I do not believe children are likely to understand or benefit from. Contrary to Lewis Carroll’s original concept, a character known as ‘Time’ played by Johnny Depp, is central to the story as Alice time travels to change the past.

‘You cannot change the past!’ screams Alice at one point in the film.

The same insight applies to the future…a simple fact that children would do well to be taught at an early age. But of course, science fiction knows no end to the concept of jumping forwards and backwards along the illusion of linear time.

‘The Time Machine’, directed by George Pal, 1960. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Whilst Western fiction writers are sending their characters off ‘through time’ in absurd contraptions, philosophers and some indigenous tribes like the Dogon, describe a ‘non-linear time’ model in which all pasts, presents and futures exist together.

Just as one needs a map to know a destination, a time traveller needs to know the where and when of a proposed journey. There are many oracle card designers and readers in Western societies today; overtaking the famous ‘Tarot’. An ‘oracle reader’ will use cards to predict ‘the future’ but preface the prediction with ‘this is only one of many futures.’

It would be good for us all, in my view, if we admit that the fourth dimension which we call ‘time’ is a mysterious, filtered perception and, in my view, better left so.

What then? Well, this leaves us with ‘the present’ and we should not feel the lesser for it. Perhaps we should pause and seriously contemplate how much we live in the present and how much in selected memories of past and an imaginary future.

I have noticed how older people, enjoying the last flourish of their lives, tend to talk too much about things that they have done in the past. Sometimes these stories contain humour or valuable life lessons but mostly they are experiences intended to impress rather than amuse or inform.

This phenomena is not only applicable to personal history, but also scholars of global history, politics, religions and any subject that has come and gone.

We tend to understand now, that history is ‘written by the victors’. Writers filter facts in order to record a biased account for intentional or unintentional reasons. Politicians of all colours, do the same. We tend to put previous leaders on pedestals and forget their misjudgements and misdeeds. For example Winston Randolph Churchill was a man whose military mistakes are overlooked for his finer qualities of oratory and leadership. Nelson R. Mandela was an ANC terrorist imprisoned for his acts and yet later was awarded the Nobel peace prize for laying down the foundations of equality of the races and democracy in South Africa. Mother Teresa valued ‘poverty’ so much she rarely distributed the money she was given to the poor. Are these people really good role models for future generations?

The further back into the past one investigates, the more imagination and conjecture colours and shades reality. Religions have a hard time presenting a solid case around revered or ‘holy’ prophets and saints for the same reasons. The main difference compared to politics, in my view, is that for religions, ‘faith’ can be used to excuse the unprovable.

Religious scriptures that do not change endure, because they can be trusted. The dynasties of ancient Egypt could be argued to have remained powerful through thousands of years for this very reason. An nnovatory pharaoh, such as Akhenaten, was overruled by the priests on his death and past traditions restored.

Today academics study the past, apparently for it’s own sake. A cabinet full of Stone Age flints, for instance, is meaningless to the ordinary person. In contrast, the causes and consequences of war might be considered worthy of study and learning lessons, but this rarely happens. For this we pay a price and wars continue to this day.

The tales of olden times, told around the camp fire by our ancestors, sustained knowledge and wisdom, whereas today there is little such continuity and consensus for our children.

Past and future are fraught with conjecture, imagination, bias, incomplete facts and false reasoning. I suggest that the value of both the past and future as treated in the West today, is at best limited and at worst, misleading.

Which leaves us with the present. The ancient Greeks had a word for the quality of the present moment which is ‘kairos’. It describes the true value of every moment. When they measured time with solar shadows or lunar observations for purely practical reasons, they called it ‘chronos’. The two were distinct and even turn up in the Holy Bible in Acts 13:18 and 27:9 .

In the East, ancient thinkers have encapsulated the same idea; such as in Zen Buddhism and Taoism. In Zen, the meditator is kept in the moment by being struck with a stick by the teacher, should a student’s mind be observed to be wandering.

But perhaps it is a surprise to find the same understanding also described in the Holy Bible. Ephesians 5, 15-17, James 4 and Psalm 118 all refer to and imply an awareness of the quality of the ‘God filled’ moment. What the ancient Greeks called ‘chronos’ is time as a measured ‘tick’ of time, however this might be done. This, apart from being helpful when arranging appointments, is a double edged concept that creates the stress of having to avoid ‘lateness’ and ‘sloth’ and ‘waste’.

‘What a complete waste of time!’, we say and yet how is this ever possible?

In contrast, the kairos moments embrace all our thoughts and actions and give grace for inspiration to enter a persons soul. Those who only measure time experience the frustration which we call ‘impatience’.

In Western Judaeo-Christian history, there has always been an understanding of not only the right moment to perform an action but a right season. For instance, there are times in the Jewish Astrological calendar that is it wise to start a new enterprise. This is the month of March or Aries in astrology. If one is wishing to start a new business, for instance, then the unique qualities of this part of the solar year, add benefit to the enterprise and make it more likely to succeed.

The contrast between chronos and kairos concepts of time bear a parallel resemblance to a ‘five senses’ life and an ‘inner senses’ life respectively. The majority of the population are primarily engaged in the former; particularly the agnostics who believe that when the watch winds down, it is dead. Non such ‘clockwork minds’ are able to give less importance to the five senses and develop awareness of ‘Mind’. Mind is what is happening within ones body / mind unity, as a microcosm of everything in the Universe.

This ‘universal’ way of life, is one of the many graces obtainable through being sensible of the subtle, ‘unmeasured’, qualities of our soul and being present in it.

The poet and mystic William Blake expressed this most perfectly in his poem

Auguries of Innocence;

‘To see a world in a grain of sand,

And heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour,’

Featured

The Era of Terror

/ Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

In 2001 on September 11th there was an attack on the World Trade Centre in the city of New York and simultaneously other locations critical to national security. Many United States of America citizens felt threatened in their own country for the first time; horror was not happening somewhere else. President George W. Bush famously declared a ‘war on *error’ and many sympathetic and perhaps frightened nations, rallied to the clarion call.

The problem was, what is a *errorist? Is it an individual, a group, an army, a State or just a cause?

A definition of *errorism is;

‘The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.’

This definition creates an ambiguity as it so broad, it includes conventional warfare between countries. But perhaps all ‘war’ is a form of *errorism? At the other extreme, one person acting alone can be a *errorist. Attacks by one or many are high risk missions usually against a considerably superior force.

*errorism is mostly a means of engendering fear in a population for political aims and in my view is a tactic distinct from total war.

I list below five examples historical examples of *errorist conflicts. The question I am asking myself is ‘how could these have been better dealt with?’. The conclusion I reach is not what you might expect, given the cost that individuals and nations pay in efforts to ‘eliminate’ the *errorist/s.

  1. In Rwanda there was a mass murder carried out by one tribe against another. Even next door neighbours became enemies overnight and were dealt with brutally.
  2. The Irish Republican Army emerged from Southern Ireland against Northern Ireland using terror tactics. After three decades of getting nowhere with violence the IRA joined the government under the name of their political wing; Shin Feinn and a peace treaty ‘The Good Friday Agreement’ signed.
  3. A Coalition of Nations invaded Afghanistan on 7th October 2001. After a couple of decades they departed unceremoniously, leaving the Taliban extremists to form a government.
  4. The Green Peace ship ‘Rainbow Warrior’ was sunk by two agents of the French government in New Zealand’s Auckland Harbour as it threatened French projects in the region. The agents were sent to jail and Rainbow Warrior II was launched.
  5. The Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian in an act of terror that started the First World War, due to a complex system of Treaties within Europe.

In these examples it can be seen that the *errorist is unlikely to achieve their aim by the use of violence, whilst civilian populations suffer most. Governments also fail to ‘come out on top’ during protracted campaigns against politically motivated *errorists. If the head of the mole is hit, another one pops up.

The challenge, in my view, is one of problem solving: a subject assumed to exist where it often does not. Yes, if your country is attacked you use force to repel the attack, but when the enemy disappears as the smoke rises from the scene of carnage, who are your armies expected to fight? The best they can do is ‘patrol’ and in the process be picked off by an unseen enemy. So what would a ‘problem solver’ do?

If I can use the metaphor of the problem of driving a nail into a piece of wood, we may view it from a different perspective; a tried and tested problem solving technique.

(1) There are those who would argue that a hammer is too brutal and something soft, such as a banana should be used. The United Nations Peace Keeping Force during the Rwandan genocide in 1963/4 are an example of this. Because of strategic priorities and orders ‘not to fire unless in self defence’ they were powerless to stop the atrocities Hutu’s atrocities against the Tutsi.

(2) After decades of effort with little success, the person hitting the nail gets tired. The British Army during the decades of the Northern Ireland ‘troubles’ failed to achieve their aim of keeping the United Kingdom safe from *errorism. The two sides finally came together and shook hands as both finally realised the futility of violence.

(3) In Afghanistan the original nail turned into one of a multitude. As fast as nails can be driven in, others appear unexpectedly. Both the Russian invaders and the Coalition Armies failed to fight effectively against the guerrilla tactics of the Mujahidin and Taliban respectively. The Coalition was beaten militarily and politically, as was the USA in Vietnam.

(4) The nail fails to be driven in one stroke. The *errorists are detained, tried, put in prison but released before their sentences expired. The sinking of the Green Peace ship is an example of this. The building of a new ship to replace the old is an example of the futitily of violence.

(5) Sometimes the hammer produces an unintended spark which sets fire to the whole workshop. The assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand igniting the first World War is an example of this.

How our metaphorical nail got there in the first place and whether a skilled carpenter would have more success, or removing the wood from the nail, or not using a hammer, are just a few of the options unlikely to be considered.

What today is termed ‘soft politics’ must be a viable option to the ‘alpha male locking of horns’ approach of the past. Certainly there are lessons from the past which have repeatedly failed to be learnt.

In present times, matters which you might consider to be of the most extreme importance to individuals and nations are put in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. If there are wise advisers in government or opposition or in the civilian population, they might be ignored or suppressed (prison) or ‘eliminated’ (deportation or execution). This process compounds the dissent in civilian populations.

In the 21st century one would hope that solving problems by direct confrontation is no longer an option. Wars are expensive and if for no other reason than this, governments need to face up to those who commit *errorist acts against them with the answer to a simple question; where did this come from? In my view, unpicking the answer is the beginning of a solution.

Perhaps all war is *errorism and as Winston Churchill suggested, ‘Jaw Jaw’ is how to solve all the problems. Perhaps warfare in general is the error? How cleverly Mahatma Gandhi reclaimed the jewel of the British Empire with just a loin cloth and spinning wheel.