Politics

Featured

War of Words

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

Words, good slaves but bad masters.

H.G. Wells wrote The War of the Worlds, a story about creatures from another part of the Universe invading the planet Earth and how the humans fought back. Words too can conquer worlds, especially the world in your mind. For this reason, I believe it is vital that we choose words that fit exactly the meaning we intend.

When speaking, we like to believe that we use words to converse clearly with others.

If there are no words in our own language we can create new words in fun and familiar ways. This linguistic phenomena is apparent in the speech of young people. New generations invent their own vocabulary with which to talk behind the backs of adults!

The power of language is it’s ability to open new perspectives on life. A restricted vocabulary will limit thoughts to the point that they no longer serve anyone’s best interest.

Words create our thoughts which can in inturn be inhibited by those words. Imagine a map of a city as a model of your neural pathways. Those journeys we repeat, such as to work, become familiar, almost over used. A map is also constrained by it’s boundaries. It does no show the whole world. The unreachable thoughts are as if in another dimension. Logic cannot venture beyond logic.

I listened to a debate on the radio recently in which scientists were challenging each other over the popular conundrum, ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ They conjectured about birds as dinosaurs and an absurd point in time when the first egg was laid. Only one scientist suggested that change is a gradual process when viewed over long periods of time. No parrot changes colour over night. Evolutionary changes take thousands of years before being noticeable. There is no single moment when chickens and eggs come ‘into being’.

picture credit: The Australian Academy of Science

The same is true in astronomy. Do you believe the universe happened in a nano second as the so called ‘big bang’. Scientists are currently theorising that universes expand and contract over vast periods of time. The explosive power of the ‘big bang’ phrase, froze original thinking about how the universe began for decades. The universe was never a chicken, nor an egg…it is obviously both.

Semiotics is the science of language and meaning. In my view, we all benefit from understanding how we structure our thoughts using language and meaning. Here is an exercise;

Imagine a ‘cake’.

There are many categories we can use to describe cakes. There are cakes we sub-categorise by their ingredients such as a sponge cake, fruit cake, carrot cake and oat cake. Then there terms for cake which describe when we eat it, such as birthday cake, Christmas cake or wedding cake. Alternatively the means of production is a description such as home-made or shop-bought. Another way of thinking about cake is the origin of the recipe such as Black Forest, Dundee or French Fancies.

None of these sub-categories describe cake but the word cake includes all of the sub-categories. When we choose which cake is included in which sub-category we use thought to DISCRIMINATE between different cakes. This tool is an important power of mental faculty but unfortunately it’s meaning has changed in common usage. It has become to mean PREDJUDICE and in my view, there is a loss of meaning and ergo understanding, when these two are confused.

Discrimination is an objective skill whereas prejudice is subjective. When we think subjectively we mix emotions with logic. Feelings introduce prejudice for or against something in a way that cannot be explained logically. Insignificant examples are then used ‘prove’ to oneself and others that a prejudice is based on fact in a process known as ‘bias confirmation’.

Bear with me if you think I am stating the obvious but in my view much cultural, ethnic, racial, gender based, geographic, religious and political misunderstanding has it’s roots in how language governs thinking and in particular, prejudice.

A mind which for whatever reason developes a predjudice against a general category of something is in trouble. To use our previous example, it would be wrong to say ‘I don’t like cake’ when what is meant is that you do not like cake with a lot of cream.

When it comes to making prejudices against categories of fellow human beings we hit trouble. Any prejudice is more a product of intolerance, misunderstanding, eliteism, narrow mindedness and other unelightened views in the mind of the observer. However, we hear predjudice views in the news regularly so it is important to unpick how and why they are held.

Consider the term ‘anti-Semitism’. The German journalist Wilhelm Adolph Marr lived at the end of the nineteenth century. He popularised the term ‘anti-Semitic’ to describe anti-Jewish sentiment within political ideology and the general public.

This prejudice towards Jews we know has been present for thousands of years. What was new then was the term, ‘anti-Semitic’. It could be argued that this contributed to the start of the second world war and it remains in common usage today, so did it ever serve the world well?

Let us examine the term. We might question the meaning of the term Semite. Who can define what this means other than an anthropologist? Cynics might suggest the use of the term was a pseudo scientific device to impress and support a prejudice which in turn came from right wing views on eugenics.

Certainly just as ‘cake’ has many sub-categories, so does the word Semite. Historically a Semite might be from a specific geographical location such as Canaan, Judah, Judea, Israel or Palestine.

The term ‘Jew’ is entomologically derived from the tribe of Judea. Then of course there are sub-categories for a Jewish person by religion such as orthodox, conservative or reform. Then there are those who are Jewish but do not practice a religion such as non-practising Jews and those who do not believe in God such as Zionists; who might be Jewish or Christian.

Sometimes language is used to catergorise a ‘people’ and using this categorisation, Semites would be a group who speak Hebrew and / or Aramaic.

The Nazi’s in the 1930’s arbitrarily define a Jew by racial characteristics, not religion, derived from an elitist philosophy of the Aryan race being superior to others on which an extreme predjudice was based.

We might expect a national category of Jew, but the Supreme Court of Israel has determined there is no Israel nationality.

There are other sub-categories of Jewish identity such as by culture, ethnicity and politics, but I hope that I have made the point that the terms ‘Semite’ and ‘Jew’ mean many things to many people depending on what category you choose to define them.

Who is a Jew? picture: Instagram

There is a criticism of the term Semite as meaning Jewish by non-jewish people, that it ‘disingenuously’ excludes those who also identify themselves as Semite, such as Arabs. Does the term anti-semite poplarly applied to Jewish people, imply a denial that Arabs are also of Semitic origin?

In my view, the nineteenth century pseudo scientific phrase ‘anti-Semitic’ continues to obfuscate clear thought and sustains predjudice rather than exposing it. It has been used by politicians in particular with the intention including victims of the holocaust and stealing their suffering to gain the moral high ground. Such verbal smoke and mirrors has spawned wars and continues to do so to this day, unquestioned.

In my view, it time to clear our thoughts of words that do not describe precisely what they mean. This is not just a matter of taking sides but simply being clinically clear about where are ideas come from? Are they the product of predjudices? What are the intended and unintended consequences?

To be impartial in a debate that is more a minefield than a cornfield, let us reverse the coin and examine the current term for ‘hatred of Muslims’; Islamaphobia. Again, should we not question the use of this term? Should the psychological term ‘phobia’ really be used to describe a fear of spiders, snakes and Muslims? Clearly confusion, not clarity will result from humans being casually categorised using a word from the science of psychology incorrectly, rather than a clear expression most people understand.

Fortunately, words can serve us to correct such unclear thinking. We can invent new words or phrases in any language and in doing so, say exactly what we mean, fairly and without bias.

It should not be, but if a bigot wishes to describe a group of humans using a term of predjudice, then I suggest that those describing distaste of a sub-category of a human being, should use the prefix ‘anti’. This creates the terms anti-jewish or anti-muslim concisely and without ambiguity. Alternatively, the terms ‘jew hate’ and ‘muslim hate’ in countries where ‘hatred’ is an important aspect of a legal definition and unambiguous to all. The prejudice is clear to all and not spun with fake science. It also makes clear that these are irrational generalisations.

There is a war of the worlds, but it is contained in our heads, not the heads of other people who we may not understand.

In my opinion, the dangerous, self-unaware prejudices that thrive in the emotional biases of current politics, poison the thoughts of otherwise rational and compassionate human beings, and in doing so whole communities. Such hatred of difference is so divisive that it incites violence between one group and another. The simplest example is when governments of countries declare war on each other.

Words are powerful as they form a part of the process whereby we create and sustain our beliefs. How much of the horror that we see in the news today, started as copied or learnt bias, built on an emotional response to an unfiltered stimulus, that slipped under the barrier of compassion towards others.

It is clear to many but sadly not all, that those who express ‘anti’ views in the name of a religion, are not following the most basic rules of the religion they profess to follow.

Fortunately, those who are strongly, even violently prejudiced, are in a tiny minority. The general population do respect and are prepared to learn from, those who are different to themselves. The world’s religions all follow the principle of do-as-you-would-be-done-by.

Speak as you wish to be spoken to

Featured

Magick, Majesty and Matrix

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

‘The world is an illusion, a dream. It only appears to be real

to the person who is unaware that it is a dream.’ Alan Watts

There is a famous story about a trickster named Rumpelstiltskin. The daughter of a Miller must spin straw into gold. Her father has promised the King she has this skill, but she does not. A strange impish man appears and spins straw into gold on behalf of the Miller’s daughter for three nights. In return, she has to promise him her firstborn child. When she marries the king, she forgets her promise. So, the strange man appears again and demands her child, but she refuses. He says she has three days to guess, otherwise he will take the child. A servant happens to find the little man who is singing a rhyme, which includes his name. The Queen reveals she now knows his name, and Rumpelstiltskin sinks into the ground.

https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/rumpelstiltskin

The story has appeared in different guises but has the same structure worldwide. Academics have categorised the form as ‘The Name of the Supernatural Helper’ in the genre of ‘fairy tales’.

Like most such tales, it hides meanings beyond the level of a nursery audience. The Miller is clearly also a trickster archetype, as he tells a complete lie to the King, putting his daughter in peril of being called a fraudster. She, in turn, must make a Faustian bargain with the Devil to hide the truth from the King.

It is worth noting that politics today contains similar patterns of lies and pacts with hopelessly untrustworthy tricksters, for personal power and gain. Both President Putin in Russia and the Zionist Israeli government have invaded and made war with their neighbours, disproportionate to the threat posed to their own countries. They expect the world to be fooled by their deceit. A trickster ‘Trump’ ineffectively poses as a ‘peace maker’ to gain a gold medal.

Historically, Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have made pacts on behalf of shadowy organisations with a view to shaming and blackmailing public figures. He could not spin golden threads from straw, but he convinced many that he could.

Such alluring but shady dealing describes the energy of the trickster archetype well.

To the princess, the character of Rumpelstiltskin is both a blessing and a curse. Psychologically, the creature represents the trickster archetype within her own shadow animus. ‘Stiltskin visits her at night and produces the desired golden threads each morning for three days, to get her out of trouble. It is worth noting that three is a magical number, as in the expression ‘third time lucky’. Names, numbers and spells sustain the suspense of this story.

The transmutation of base matter into gold is a representation of an alchemical and psychological mutation of lead into the noble metal gold, and a feminine persona and a male animus into a noble human, respectively. Perhaps the Miller’s daughter learnt risky deceit for personal gain from her father – her animus model?

We must question why the gold is spun into gold ‘threads’ instead of, say, gold coins? The spinning wheel is again a very ancient symbol. Mahatma Gandhi used it to represent ‘honest work’ to make a political point, but the wheel also represents ‘wholeness’ and the turning of the Universe we call ‘time’.  

picture credit:
Ancient Egypt Online

A sphere is the shape on the crown of the great creator and sun god Ra.

A thread is another old symbol going back to Ariadne and the Minotaur in ancient Greece. It represents the ability of the rational mind to follow a line of reasoning, the product of which today is the basis of science. A thread also suggests woven cloth or carpets, as in the magic carpets of the One Thousand and One Nights tales. Today, the World Wide Web is capable of transporting anybody anywhere in the world instantly.

The whole of the ‘reality’ in which we live has been described as an illusory matrix. In The Matrix cinematic trilogy, the character Neo can move from one reality into another. The Matrix is depicted on a computer screen as lines of descending pictograms. This is certainly an oversimplification and a product of the limits of computers when the film was made.

picture credit: Hindu American Foundation

Two eminent scientists, University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein and one of the world’s most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram have put forward a theory that the whole Universe is a hologram. In his book ‘The Holographic Universe’ Michael Talbot describes a ‘revolutionary theory of reality’. We may be familiar with lasers producing talking images of people located elsewhere in real time. There is now a holographic performance by the Swedish pop group ABBA in a London theatre, which many find remarkably real.

Abba Voyage in London: picture credit The Standard Newspaper

A holographic Universe involves ‘warping and wafting’ lines of information-rich energy to create what humans experience as matter. The ancients demonstrated the pivotal moment of their supreme control of matter by building the pyramids on the Giza plateau. Their dynastic evolution moved from an energetic world focused on minor gods and the afterlife, into solid matter.

In a way, this is what Rumpelstiltskin is doing. He uses golden straw to create the eternal element, Au or Gold. Intriguingly, the symbol Au derives from the Latin aurum, for Aurora, the goddess of dawn. Each day, poetically, the beginning of a new world; a new beginning for mankind, and the Miller’s daughter. So perfect are her tricks that she transforms herself from a humble citizen into a Queen. This is the alchemical marriage, as depicted in many of the Alchemist’s works and represents spiritual perfection.

In the story, Rumpelstiltskin says that he wants nothing except a living child. He has mastered the material world and now craves what he can not create, a living child, or you might say, consciousness. This also happens to be the limit of modern science, but perhaps Artificial Intelligence will take up the role of the ancient demigods?

Agent Smith picture credit Weaving Movies Wallpaper

The Agent Smith character/s in the film The Matrix are demonic autonomous programmes which have penetrated the firewalls of The Oracle and threaten humankind.

Key to unravelling the complex layers of our story is the riddle of the trickster’s name. Today, passwords allow us to enter a programme and keep others out.

Words represent ideas, and ideas are the initial stage of the Creation process. ‘In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.’ (John1.1)

In magical spells, words and their ‘spelling’ are important. The most well-known might be ‘Abracadabra’, which it has been suggested to mean ‘may it be so’. It is a spell of manifestation and, more darkly, deconstruction. Abracadabra can be spoken, losing one letter at a time to ‘deconstruct’ something.

Rumpelstiltskin, somewhat vainly, believes the princess will never discover his name. Commonly, tricksters can become victims of their vanity and underestimate those whom they are trying to deceive. The politics of the USA today is poisonous with self-important deceivers.

So fundamental to his very existence is the name Rumpelstiltskin that when revealed, he physically deconstructs as a programme uninstalls.

He never achieves his goal of possessing and perhaps creating life. He is beaten at his own game of deceit by one who is more deceitful. The Miller’s daughter has done this by confronting the mischievous spirit within herself. When humans confront their shadow side in this manner, they become whole or ‘holy’. The trickster disappears.

A child will readily listen to this tale, not knowing and not needing to know its levels of meaning. It is a healing story; one that may be carried through life as a mental ‘anti-virus’ programme, always scanning for what will spin the creation process through the realm of dreams.

the Flower of Life picture credit Alziend

Featured

Peace Begets Peace

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

Most people hate war, especially soldiers, so why does it happen?

The problem is that war is an option of last resort. Ideally, all other options have been explored before war happens, but from then on, ‘the continuation of politics by other means‘, to paraphrase Carl von Klauswitz.

picture credit: World History Encyclopaedia

War will persist until it is possible to stop it; a process far harder to achieve than starting a war. Each conflict is a set of unique circumstances and different ways to reach a peace. At worst the war will become one of attrition and it becomes impossible for both sides to continue. Alternatively, political and public support for a war wanes or perhaps an overwhelming third force appears that compels surrender.

You would like to think that ‘how to stop a war’ is taught in military academies, but such executive decisions are more likely made my politicians rather than military leaders and politicians usually have no experience of ‘conflict resolution’ at this scale. Even in wars which have been wars of attrition, the conclusion of war requires considerable diplomatic skill. For if one side is forced into conditions of surrender that are too onerous and dishonourable, the process of recovery becomes excessively hard and national pride will almost certainly wish to seek redress sometime in the future.

The world might have learnt this lesson at the conclusion of the first world war, which was a spiral of attrition requiring the intervention of a third party; the USA to make it stop. The armistice terms demanded by the Allies, were so severe that they left a ticking time bomb, which exploded as the second world war.

The present war in Ukraine has been described by some as the beginning of the third world war, but there is another view. It could be argued that what is happening in Ukraine since 2004, when Russia annexed parts of Ukraine and later the Crimean peninsula, is an after shock of the second world war .

In that war, an American General raced against the Russians to roll his tanks into Berlin ; General George Patten.

The politicians tolerated his outspoken gaffs, because he was a superb military leader. Patten was of the opinion that the allies should continue to Moscow and finish the war for good.

The politicians ignored his advice and the United States spent the next few decades ‘fighting communism’ in what became known as, Mc Carthy era. Countries such as Cuba, Korea, China, Russia and Vietnam caused considerable headaches for the American politicians and military; feeding a neurotic culture of suspicion of called;  ‘reds under the beds’.

There is an argument that the present war in Ukraine is the continuation of the communist expansionism in Europe that immediately followed the conclusion of the second world war. President Putin justified invading sovereign Ukraine to the Russian people, by stating that his strategic aim is to defend Russia against an expanding NATO threat but less blatantly to fight ‘Nazis in Ukraine’. For Putin the ‘Great Patriotic War’ fighting fascism did not finish.

The technology of war inevitably played it’s part in this conclusion. The use of the Atomic bomb by the USA in the Japan, brought the conflict there to a sudden halt. Communist sympathisers within the Allies, gave the secrets of the atom bomb to the Soviet Union, who speedily test fired an exact copy of the American atomic bomb, shocking the world. Perhaps as intended by the ‘traitors’ who leaked the secrets of the atom bomb, this mutual threat has forced ‘the Cold War’ and an unsteady world peace ever since. Nine or so countries now have them and others want nuclear weapons despite the efforts of the International Atomic Weapons Agency, set up to prevent their proliferation.

It is important to realise that after the fall and fragmentation of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with fifteen pressurised water reactors of Russian VVER design, and importantly Soviet era strategic nuclear weapons.

Three of these ex-Soviet countries were persuaded to give up their nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons between 1993 and 1996. The nuclear powers overseeing this process were the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom. They  agreed not to use military force or economic coercion against these three countries unless for self defence or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The diplomats and lawyers who wrote the Budapest Memorandum were perhaps, not clear about what constitutes ‘self defence’. Most strategists and tacticions, know that the principle of striking the enemy before they hit you, creates an element of surprise that can be construed as ‘defence’. Putin’s original ‘Special Military Operation’ was justified as ‘self defence’ but, unfortunately for him, it didn’t knock out his opponent with the first punch. The surprise was Putin’s. He thought Ukraine would be easy to take.

Putin constantly cites NATO as a growing threat, especially after the fall of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, Ukraine’s president from 2010 to 2014. Yanukovych had promised the Ukrainian people in his election manifesto, that Ukraine would apply to join the European Union or at least set up special trade agreements which would lead to this. But after a phone call from the Kremlin, he enraged on this promise and there were riots in the streets. These were violently suppressed by the government leading to over 100 deaths. Yanukovych fled to Russia and Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president on the promise of European integration. Europe responded with indirect support.

Ukraine is an important buffer state for NATO because it has arguably, prevented World War III. It has so far, been a narrow escape for all, provided Trump isn’t elected and gives in to the Russians. The USA has not been good the diplomacy of war and should have learnt some important lessons, such as from the war in Vietnam.

An indignant generation of young people in the United States rebelled against the war in Vietnam as it was played out graphically on their television screens. Newspaper reporters photographed the horror of war; photographs which stunned Americans and the world alike. Young men angrily burnt their call up papers in front of crowds of anti-war protesters as four successive Presidents presided over an unwinnable war. In a way, the protesters against this and later wars (such as the invasion of Iraq by the US and coalition forces in 2003) stuck their flag in the moral ‘high ground’. War was wrong.

Awakenings of conscience and consciousness happen at the individual level long before  parliamentarians hear and reflect the ‘mood of the nation’. If war is going to be rejected as a method of ‘problem solving’, there has to be a global realisation of the immorality and futility of using violence against a fellow human being. It would be idealistic to suggest that this could happen in the near future but perhaps there is, a greater possibility for change than now, than there ever has been.

In my view, change will only happen with the introduction of a ‘third force’ which might be a charismatic world leader from this or another solar system, new technology or a third force with the means to eliminate humans, shared global problems of a catastrophic nature or just a spiritually and / or morally inspired realisation that violence is wrong.

The reference to ‘another solar system’ may have surprised readers! But the presence of advanced beings on earth is hardly a secret any more. The problem is that they are being characterised as violent and a threat to mankind. The narrative of ‘global security’ by successive U.S administrations, introduced ‘Star Wars’ under the Reagan and a whole new defence wing under Trump called the Space Development Agency. Hollywood has aided and abetted a global fear of invasion of ‘beings from outer space’ who wish humans harm.

The reality as described in Dr. Steven Greer’s film, ‘Close Encounters of a Fifth Kind’, is that highly evolved beings are watching and guiding us until we wish only peace for each other. World religions have been advocating this for centuries so humans cannot claim ignorance.

picture credit: Screen Space

Such a change of morals and consciousness is not a vain hope. There have been historical precedents. The crucifixion of one man in Roman Palestine, started a new religion based on love and compassion for all other people, including enemies. The election of a Pope gives some hope to the world that ethics may now take more of a role in international politics.

The demand for a planet where there is no war, is now in the hands of the politicians, lawyers, military leaders, religious leaders, industry. But the arms industry has been more interested in shareholders than ploughshares. The only possible novel outcome to being a victim of unrestrained violence, is for individuals to peacefully protest.

Mahatma Gandhi used non-violent protest to British rule in India. Peaceful overwhelming presence is an extraordinary power.  When it fails, it makes powerful martyrs but when won, makes lasting peace.

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

The Empires Strike

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

For centuries, Europe was dominated by Empire building around the world. In the Twentieth Century the Empires, such as the British Empire, finally broke down and gave autonomous sovereign states their freedom back. It might have appeared that the age of ’empire building’ was over, but that is far from the case.

In the Twenty First century it is clear that Empires are back. Key to the once powerful British Empire had been the Navy and control of the seas around the world. Today the vulnerable global ‘key points’ are canals and pinch points in shipping lanes. The Houthis in Southern Yemen potentially control the infamous Straits of Hormuz; gateway to the Red Sea and Suez Canal. They will stop attacking Israeli shipping, they say, when Israel stops attacking Gaza. Neither the British, USA or Israel have tested this, preferring to extend the genocide in Gaza and attack Yemen, than take the Houthis at their word.

One of the strategic reasons for the establishment of a pro-Western State in the Middle East in 1948 (Israel) was, and still is, control of the Suez Canal. In 1956 the British, French and Israelis sought to gain control of the Suez Canal when Egypt nationalised it, moving their tanks from the Gaza Strip into Egypt. In my view, this imperative has never gone away.

The Empire State Building, New York

MAGA? America is already ‘great’. It consists of a continent joined by an isthmus at Panama; again, a critical shipping route. The republic of the United States of America has a ruling president who wants to expand it’s 50 State Empire northwards and south. ‘Look at this arbitrary line between the USA and Canada,’ mocks Donald Trump, as if it means nothing just because it is straight. If it was meaningless, then Canada could claim the USA, as perhaps could Mexico and Denmark, but because of international law and common sense, they do not.

Putin wants the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics back and China the island of Taiwan. Should then the British march back into India and Pakistan?

Should the French re-take French speaking Algeria?

Should Japan be given back it’s ‘Imperial’ territories in mainland China?

Should Italy claim back it’s Empire around the Mediterranean?

The list of historical reversals is absurd to all but the greedy and unpopular politicians who seek to stay in power indefinitely by empire building. Opponents are fed to the lions.

Today, Gibbon’s ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’ is a critical read for the Trumps and Putins and Shi Jinpings of this world.

It is available in eight volumes and was read by a famous world statesman when he was twenty years old; Winston Churchill.

Now he knew a thing or two about world statesmanship and his preference for ‘jaw jaw instead of war war’.

Featured

Truth Against the World

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

or “Duw y Digon” ; an ancient Welsh Druid Motto

Swinside Stone Circle picture credit: Wikipedia

The first authority over our personal truth that we encounter is within the family. Losing power to others is an experience that we mainly survive, but should this loss influence us beyond childhood?

Most social organisation, whether it be for religion, employment, education, health, defence or politics, consists of submitting to the will of others; what is termed ‘the greater good’.

It’s a system that Western societies inherited from their forefathers. Consequently, most forms of government rely on the obsequence of the masses; the most extreme example being communism where the interest of the State trumps individual rights.

Even in democracies, the majority is granted authority over the minority; however small the difference. The assumed ‘unchallengeable constant’ is, that all people have the same intelligence, education achievement and wisdom. Socrates was at odds with such a premise two millennia ago!

The question is not whether to submit to authority or not. Someone, somewhere will have a hold over you. The question is not then, how clever are they? The challenge for all of us is not to give away all of our freedom but just to ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s’ (Matthew 22:21).

Authority manifests itself in social systems most commonly as a pyramid shaped hierarchy. In politics there will be an ‘overlord’ such as a President or Prime Minister, Chancellor or Chairman or Monarch.

Below the ‘head of government’ there are layers of middle ranking politicians. Unelected bureaucrats disseminate and legislate the strategies of the politicians. The general population occupy the lower part of the pyramid believing they are represented by those above and give away their power.

The military use an undemocratic system of organisation. There is a self organising ‘pyramid of power’. The organisation discourages individuals from thinking for themselves, requiring unquestioning obedience to orders from those higher in rank.

Take this ‘pyramid organisation’ model and transfer it to other social organisations and we see control by a minority of leaders;

Religions – Popes, Priests, Rabbis, Imams, Shaman

Companies – Managing Directors, CEO’s, Owners and Oligarchs

Education – Ministers of State, Head Teachers, Professors, Chancellors

Health – Ministers of State, Hospital managers, General and Specialist practitioners.

There have been exceptions to this ‘hierarchy of merit’. Google, for instance, practised an egalitarian approach to management for a while. At meetings, no individual oversaw proceedings. Each had a theoretical ‘equal say’. What happened in reality was that the person with the strongest personality and loudest voice controlled the meeting, rather than the person or persons with the best ideas.

So far we have considered how hierarchical organisations function. Now let us view the issue from another angle. Is it not the case that there have been in history, two types of leaders; good ones and bad ones?

This may sound trite, but it is an important distinction!

High ranking politicians for example, make promises about what they will do in government if elected. Few discuss the means by which they will achieve this objective. In this way, ‘making America great again’ fails to include a description of what greatness is, how it is going to be achieved and who is going to benefit. It even fails to describe what is meant by ‘America’. Does that include Canada, Greenland, Mexico and South America? Or does it just mean U.S. (us)? Such vague leadership is historically the breeding ground of disappointment at best and catastrophe at worst.

We know in Europe there have been good monarchs and bad monarchs. The last good monarch in England is said to have been King John of England (1166 – 1216). He was persuaded to give his royal power to his Barons. ‘Good King Wenceslas’ was good but European Kings and Queens were too often flawed by greed, anger, adultery, criminality such as murder, drug dependency, jealousy, war warmongering, excess tax demands, madness, religious dogma and bigotry, black magic and worse.

Good and bad are of course not always simple to define. In modern times political ideologies have split voters between the right and left. This is true in both the United States of America and an increasing number of European countries.

To summarise; in democracies people they to vote for who they regard as good leaders. The definition of ‘good leaders’ is unlikely to be agreed upon!

A creative thinker might desire moving power away from this divided collective schizophrenia.

A stabilising element of this unstable social organisation, is truth. For millennia, humans have obeyed whatever ‘truth’ those to whom they have given their personal power. They have been obliged to trust those who claim to be their superiors but in fact they are just acting out their weaknesses and lies! Hans Christian Anderson’s literary folk tale entitled ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ mocks the absurdity of delusional leaders and describes the masses failing to speak the truth to power.

Eventually, authority without truth, declines and falls. The Roman Empire is one of the best examples of this. So is there benign alternative to the many shades of autocracy?

In the North American indigenous tribes there was an interesting alternative form of leadership and wise counsel. People of the tribe would sit in a circle to debate important decisions on equal terms. To prevent them all speaking at once, a single feather was handed around in turn and whoever held the feather was permitted to say their truth without interruption. This was called ‘goose leadership’ after the manner of geese in flight that take turns to hold the point position at the front of the flocks V formation.

The legendary King of Britain, King Arthur, declined autocratic rule. He changed his throne into a round table for himself and his knights. In doing so he showed he was prepared to listen to others. Debate was valued for the truth of others, independent of their rank. Perhaps this was Arthur’s metaphorical sword of truth, ‘Excalibur’; released from stone hard systems of government.

As the internet today spreads it’s influence around the globe (another Round Table), disparate individuals try to speak their truth, honestly without fear or favour; so called ‘free speech’.

Humans of all races, have more in common than differences and thrive when not divided by powerful ruling minorities. Even the languages that once divided, are now being instantly translated by artificial intelligence. The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ is the ability of large groups of people to come to a benign consensus of how life is best lived.

A recent survey was made in the United Kingdom asking young people for their favourite word in 2024. It was not ‘artificial intelligence’, but ‘kindness’. The fact that the coming generation have this truth already in their hearts is good news for the population of the world in 2025…and world leaders would be wise to graffiti this word across their round tables.

Authority over Truth or Truth over Authority?

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

War Without End

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

Obviously violence between neighbouring countries should not happen, but when diplomacy fails, it does. This essay questions the best methods to mitigate the escalating war in the Middle East.

The day for Israel to robustly defend itself was October 7th 2023, but instead many Israeli citizen’s and soldier’s lives were sadly lost and hostages were taken, a failure it admits. The attack came from a country that Israel had occupied, surrounded with high walls, was accessed only through caged tunnels and sealed with check points. The war did not start on this day as some commentators suggest. It started in 1948 and even earlier.

In response to the attack the Israeli government declared it’s aims to eliminate Hammas and recover the hostages. My first question would be, is this vengeance or defence or both? Politically, military objectives need to be achievable and achieved as rapidly as possible. One year on, this has not happened. New aims on new fronts have been opened against the Houthis, Iran? and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Confused?

Diplomacy solves differences peacefully, war does the opposite. Diplomacy addresses grievances, war ignores the grievances resulting in grievances remaining; witness the conclusion of the First World War and the burning embers that ignited the Second and the inconclusive end of the Second World War that put thumbs on triggers in the Cold War.

Historically, few violent, subversive political organisations such as Hammas and Hezbollah have been eliminated by force. In recent history, ISIS have re-emerged after ‘defeat’ and in the 20th century, the IRA re-emerged using a new name.

In my view, the Zionist Israeli government have used questionable methods to ‘eliminate Hammas’. Tanks and artillery are traditionally not suitable weapons to fight an enemy in an urban context; especially one with a tunnel complex and ruined buildings forming defensive postions. The end of the Second World War saw Allied infantry troops fighting their way to Berlin, street by street, house by house; difficult and high risk tactics to clear whole cities of the enemy, but effective.

picture credit: BerlinExperiences 1945

Let us consider the second aim of the Israeli’s. The most politically astute days and months to save the hostages were immediately after they were taken. One year on, the task is far less likely ever to be achieved. On top of this, the protests by families of the hostages and undermine trust in their own government which will spread and breed wider disorder and protest.

Killing disproportionate numbers of civilians and destroying infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, is more likely to increase the ranks of Hammas fighters than reduce them, and time will tell if this is true.

At the same time, Israel has been slowly losing support from allies and other countries around the world, not for it’s aims but the manner in which is has attempted and failed to carry out it’s aims. Many observers around the world and in particular South Africa, have condemned the disproportionate loss of civilian life caused by the IDF.

I wish to point out confusion over the word used to describe ‘terrorists’. It is a term that carries considerable emotional weight without clearly defining what it is.

My definition is;

Terrorism by individuals or small cells, is lethal attacks on infrastructure and civilians during peace time in order to produce fear in a population for political motives. The IRA in the UK and ETA in Spain are examples of this from the C20th.

Terrorist tactics, when used on a large scale during peace time or war, becomes guerilla warfare.

A large well armed group using guerilla tactics in open warfare to attack opposing military forces are guerillas (meaning small war). The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting against the USSR and the Vietcong, North Vietnamese Army war with the USA are examples of this. Although they have inferior numbers and weapons guerillas can defeat a stronger opponent by attrition, local knowledge, basic instead of sophisticated logistical support and high, politically inspired, morale.

Open warfare is when a State declares itself at war against a specific enemy. Battles are fought by National forces as instructed by the government of each country. Organised land, air, sea and space forces confront similar enemy forces and seeks to overcome the enemy with maximum force in the shortest possible time.

The reader is invited to decide which definition best describes the Houthis, Hammas and Hezbollah, and the IDF. Contemporary leaders sometimes describe guerilla or even national armies as terrorists and in my view, this is more an emotional appeal for support than accurately describing the threat.

The tactics of terrorism and sometimes guerilla warfare have historically failed because brutal tactics particularly against civilians, wanes political support. Israel is currently failing in it’s objectives in my view, and is losing political support from within Israel, from it’s closest allies (including the Biden administration of USA) and the United Nations.

Israel was admitted to the United Nations on 11 May 1949 and participated in it’s aims.

Now it has fired upon an UNFIL base in Lebanon causing injury UN operatives. The political contradiction is obvious and has outraged many nations, including allies of Israel.

Israel insists it is ‘defending itself’ which may convince many of it’s authority in religious Jurisprudence and International Law, but it is dangerous to confuse defence with offence. Anyone who has played chess or watched a team sport game, knows this.

The military advantage of defence is that cover and observation is achieved using pre-prepared defences. A small defensive force can repel a larger offensive force as proved historically by the history of castles and fortifications within Europe and the Middle East.

Israel is currently using a ‘Defence Force’ to attack it’s enemies to prevent them from attacking Israel. This shows that defence and attack are indeed questionable terms.

The British Army carry a card to remind them of the Rules of Engagement;

You can always act in defence of yourself, your team mates and civilians.

You can always return fire when fired upon.

Do not engage a target of opportunity without permission, unless you are in imminent danger.

UNFIL in southern Lebanon also have no authority to attack except when fired upon. In the Rwandan genocide between April and July 1994, nearly one million Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered whilst the international community and United Nations Peacekeepers stood by. But UNFIL were placed in Southern Lebanon as a buffer between Lebanon and Israel; in effect a ‘human shield’. Why Hezbollah are allowed to occupy this buffer zone is clearly questionable.

There is a case that the Old Testament ethic of ‘an eye for an eye’ describes proportionate use of violence, and is not a justification for vengeance. This interpretation is not commonly heard or debated. The word ‘vengeance’ is an elephant in Embassy meeting rooms.

The Israeli Government tactics in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon have so far failed in their objectives. For reasons described in this essay they are in my view, likely to continue to produce poor results, escalate violence rather than reduce it and reduce support for its cause amongst its allies, particularly the USA.

Specifically, there is loss of moral justification when civilians, peacekeepers and aid workers are killed and excuses such as ‘a mistake’, ‘inadvertent’, ‘targetting the enemy’, ‘we told them to move’, ‘the fog of war’ all risk accusation and investigation of war crimes. Weapons in the 21st century are surgically accurate and guided using real time intelligence.

Many observers have pointed out that there is no justification to using 2000lb bombs to destroy a building occupied mainly by civilians; whether bad people share the building or not. However the Israeli government ‘excuse’ themselves, there is, I believe, a better alternative not discussed publicly, perhaps for security reasons.

The IDF have specially trained soldiers in counter terrorism called the Mista’ravim. They are specialists in working undercover to capture or assassinate high profile enemy targets. Many Hammas leaders, if captured alive, could have been used to negotiate the return of Israeli hostages. This opportunity has been lost as well as the chance to show the professionalism of it’s special forces and sincere desire to protect civilians.

The Mistaravim picture credit: Jerusalem Post

Special Forces all over the world, acting on intelligence from local proxy sources and real time surveillance, are trained to enter buildings with the element of surprise to rescue hostages.

There is an argument that the IDF does not have sufficient special forces to search for the hostages. If this is the case, then an appeal can be made to it’s allies to support these rescues using allied specialist units. One hundred teams working together, could have swept Gaza and it’s tunnel systems before now and would have prevented the need to destroy infrastructure such as hospitals, on the scale that has occurred. A cynical observer might query the motive for not using this tactic.

The reader is invited to view the videos on social media that many parties have posted, and form an opinion as to what ethical rules parties to this war operate under and who is enforcing them.

If the world is watching an escalating war without rules, then we are all in danger; as the First and Second World Wars proved, should we care to remember.

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.