Towards a New Humanity

It is now quite clear to us here that the only solution to the challenges posed by this moment is to press forward with the most important change of all- a change to ourselves. Whilst personal transformation has been a theme for centuries, the potential for humanity to evolve as one has only recently been seen as a possibility. At this point, we hold, it is in fact a necessity for the continued survival of the human race. Our technology has reached a point of no return.

It has reached the point where we either use it to transform our way of interacting with our planet, to make it both post-industrial and harmonious with the ecosystems surrounding us, that we have realised with increasing clarity we are dependent upon- or use it to wipe our sorry asses off the face of the planet before we become a danger to the planets surrounding ours. In this there is a failsafe to nuclear technology; only a peaceful, harmonious society can hope to survive the advent of a nuclear age. One overcome by self-centeredness and blinkered enslavement to special interests will quite simply self-destruct, before it spreads.

Looking at the challenges that face us, we would be well-advised to remember this central and well-designed truism of universe existence. The path to having god-like power is also the path to god-like responsibility and the consideration of others this brings, and in this context I include not only humans, but the rich variety of life with whom we share our planetary existence.

Everything that has happened thus far can only be seen as a warning shot, a shot above the bows, fired by no external enemy, but by us, towards us, warning ourselves of the responsibilities to ourselves and the planet we hold. There was once a time to record history, there was once a time to speak of history’s own unfoldment, yet now has come a sudden rush of something that can only be called consciousness, not only the consciousness of a few individuals, but one on a planetary level.

Let us look at the year, look at the calendar and we will see how little time is left, mere moments of this illusion we call time. In these moments, we have to learn new ways, ways in keeping with our enlarged sense of selfhood, fired by our ascendant technology. A world on the verge of discoveries of deep space travel, time travel and on the cusp of computing power that could peer into the very structure of this mathematically-designed universe itself, must awake to itself, must awake to it’s own internal unity, it’s various members being parts of one body, a body that is waking into consciousness of itself and it’s place in the universe.

In many ways, this is the last year before the great beginning. This is a time of great and dramatic change, a sudden unfoldment of evolution, by the end of which former things will be no more. A natural, sustainable world in terms of energy, politics, human inter-relations is the only way forward and it is becoming clearer and clearer all the time. As our dreams, both personal and collective, come closer to fruition, we will all the more strongly reject that which is not in accord with them. For we are not so much being remade by some hypothetical outside force, as remaking ourselves, being ultimately the arbiters of our own destinies, the co-creators of ourselves. A process we are all the more conscious of, as the moment dawns when we can stand upright in mind and heart, as well as merely in bipedal form. A moment in which we will be in touch as never before with who we are, aware as never before of that divine spark burning brightly within us and ready as never before to resume communication with our divine ancestors, who have cared so lovingly for us for all these years.

More on the Demise of Bin Laden

Certainly, if everything that is said about him is true, we have here one of the worst people of the twentieth century. From his days as a C.I.A. backed fighter in Afghanistan, in which he was trained to lead attacks on Russian soldiers and innocent civilians alike, to his more recent crimes against humanity, we have a monster who could well be considered too dangerous to be let loose, or perhaps even to let live.

Yet despite the natural jubilation of his demise, we still have to watch and check our feelings about this. As a fairy-story, it is comfortable to see a bad guy being removed from the face of the planet by highly trained SEALS, but why did this happen, and why, if it happened before, was the news released now? The most obvious answer is Obama’s election campaign. Just days after a long form proving his birth in the US, another piece of evidence of his commitment to patriotism was put on display. It appears that orders were given to not just capture the man, even if unarmed, but to execute him on the spot. Hours later, apparently, he was rushed to an aircraft carrier for a secret burial in an even more secret location. Personally, I want to trust Obama. He comes across as cool, humane and decent. Yet, I am also aware of the nature of the electorate he hopes to convince, which has a very large right-wing element which constantly throws jibes at him, not only because of his being a Democrat, but also because of his racial background. He has, in other words, an unusual amount to ‘prove’.

I don’t believe there will be any specific atrocity because of this. If any people bear the brunt of it, it will probably be in the steadily-destabilised Pakistan, where perhaps the already intense attacks on the authorities and civilised structures there will mount. Even if something did happen, there’d be no way any one could be sure to connect it to this rather than the far worse situation of daily civilian deaths in countries in the area. Fear of further terrorism, now as before, is used as a convenient media smokescreen to avoid any serious ethical (or even legal) examination of what is going on.

That all said, it would make more sense to some to target active terrorists rather than pursue the current strategy of plunging entire populations into an almost genocidal combination of military occupation, humiliation and destabilisation in the midst of the inevitable insurgencies. If just a few terrorists are killed, even in extra-judicial killings, surely this would minimise the pain? Some would say that such a view ignores the wider objectives being sought- ‘cleaning up the swamps’ that produce terrorists and guarding the next decade’s energy supplies. If such is the case, targeted killings won’t change anything, yet I still think, whatever the case, we can make something of yesterday’s news.

Whatever really happened, the feelings of relief at the news mean we are at a cross-roads. Just as the A-bomb being dropped brought controversy, but also an end to conflict and a a search for peace, this is a golden opportunity to wind down a lot of operations in the area. Whether or not the various groups we call the Taliban have been subdued, Obama can plausibly claim victory and an accomplishment of objectives. Of course, there is no guarantee any of this will happen, there is even just as much scepticism that anything has changed. Yet, as the perceptions have changed, so has an opportunity opened up. As with any possible future, it depends which one we, collectively, choose- one involving further violence and recrimination, or one with more peace, based on faith.

The Demise of Bin Laden

A seemingly momentous event occurred yesterday- finally, US special forces caught up with Bin Ladin. This is all, of course assuming that what we are being told is true. In a controversial move, rather than capture or disarm him, when he refused to surrender the forces shot him with hits to his head and chest. Saudi Arabia refusing his body, there was then a quick and secretive sea burial in accordance to Islamic customs (or so we are told), apparently putting to rest a decade of frustration at locating him and avoiding any future shrines to a man who undoubtedly will be seen as a martyr by many sympathisers.

When the news broke out, there were spontaneous celebrations in the U.S. These were mostly by people from members of the younger generation, whose early years had been scarred by his actions. They view him as a tyrant, however simplistic that may be in a world in which others, from a very different perspective, may see him as a freedom fighter, keeping colonial forces at bay. In fact, looking at the celebrations, it is perfectly clear that they are shouts of freedom, freedom from the effects of Islamic Extremism. It may well not be the end of the story, but it is certainly the end of a chapter. There are still neo-nazis around, even after the ‘suicide’ of Adolf Hitler. Yet, people celebrate VE day and VJ day all the same. It is fashionable to be a pacifist, but it makes me wonder- why are people objecting to this personalised hit on a terrorist overlord and staying silent when it comes to the daily brutality of war, that affects civilian as well as military participants? Is it the ethical issues involved, the question of capital punishment? Or is it fear of acts of revenge from his followers? Probably, a combination of both. Yet still, it is worth examining who these Islamicists are and whether opposition to them can fairly be called ‘hate’. It is also necessary to clearly distinguish between them and regular Muslims.

Look first at the society they are creating in Pakistan. Christians are persecuted and even those who stand up for their equal rights under the law. Politicians who believe in equal rights are assassinated. This is a so-called American ally! Then we have the situation in Iraq, where Iraqi Christians, even more so than in the rest of the Islamic world, are afraid for their lives and seeking to leave the country of their birth. An Afghan who converted to Christianity had to leave Afghanistan and seek refuge in Italy. It seems that direct intervention, in that it bolsters these extremists, may well do more harm than good. Yet we have to be clear about the nature of the extremists and not just seek to understand their position- they have an unacceptable level of intolerance, they have hatred in their hearts. The Americans celebrating in the streets, or the Arab masses making huge demonstrations to be free from their own tyrannous leaders share the objective of being free from this- theirs is a cry for freedom. It is very important now to make this point, as there could be a misunderstanding. Looking around the Blogsphere, I feel this is already happening- people celebrating the demise of Bin Ladin are being accused of supporting murder, or assassination, or even hatred. Yet this is a spontaneous expression of joy on the part of the people,a hope for freedom, a hope that lies in the potential of the United States especially, through diplomacy in particular, to get rid of this evil force once and for all. For whatever the problems in the US, what other great power is even nominally oriented towards freedom? The issue is for her actions to be clearer expressions of her high ideals, not becoming bogged down in worldliness.

Yet, there are mistakes and mistakes are very often failures of communication. I personally feel that it was a mistake to invade Islamic countries as part of the ‘War on Terror’, as rather than make the inhabitants have a better feeling towards the Western world due to the fruits of democracy, it increased their fear and made us seem more like occupiers. As our enemies, this made the Islamic extremists leading insurgencies, however terrible their ideas, more attractive. It helped produce soil in which they can grow. It made Vietnam-like military quagmires, in which the vastly different culture of local peoples and their intense mistrust made establishing a friendly, stable government; as was the expressed intention, almost impossible. It has wasted billions of dollars, with nothing much to show for it. Yet, being used to it, no-one objects, the situation has become institutionalised. If there is a gradual retreat from these unsustainable positions, there may still be a need to make targeted strikes, or extractions of enemies for trial. The question is, can they be precise enough to avoid civilian casualties?

In summary, the position of Perfect Futures is that the killing of Bin Ladin was a dangerous move, in that it could well enrage his followers and make him seem a martyr. Yet leaving him alone simply allows other situations, done in his name, to fester, unresolved. Whilst it is wrong to celebrate anyone’s death, it is understandable to celebrate a body-blow to tyrannical ideologies. Those who killed or celebrated the death of Bin Ladin are unlikely to be hateful people such as his followers are. The idea that they are celebrating death of any sort is a superficial misunderstanding. They are celebrating closure of a dark path the world went on after 9/11. They are hoping things will go back to normal. Their spontaneous joy is more like that of the Arab protestors in Egypt than those burning flags. They are exhibiting hope and pride. I am personally glad he is gone, but won’t be celebrating as such, as the problem of Islamic extremism is still with us. It is especially still with the Christians in Islamic lands. Yet I hope this weakens their grip, that the overall decency of Obama is remembered and the intentions he has towards a peaceful world are respected. I’d like to live in a world in which no-one needs to die. Yet I’d rather one who murdered did, rather than send a message that it is possible for such people to escape from justice and imperil million in the long run. What if he had been captured and his followers took hostages and threatened to kill them unless he was freed? I for one wouldn’t put it past them. President Obama has the tremendous responsibility of being the one in charge.  Violence may well not solve anything, but those in charge of keeping the peace may well have to deal with the violent, if only to protect the innocent and the very rule of law from being harmed by them.

We witnessed the lesser of evils yesterday. Let us hope and pray for a better world to follow, that it’s aims are understood and that the plans of anyone seeking revenge for it will come to nothing.

>Prayers for Peace

>Prayers for the safety of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, recently attacked by an Afghan war veteran, quite probably for her strong support of Obama’s healthcare plan and also for the family of Salmaan Taseer in Pakistan, assassinated by his own bodyguard for his support for the religious freedoms of Pakistan’s Christian minority. Each were attacked by violent extremists, egged on by the aggressive rhetoric of irressponsible politicians. Sure, the cultures and situations are very different, but these violent actions, attempts at intimidation aimed squarely at human rights activists, clearly show the danger we face from those opposed to the democratic process and the mandate enjoyed by those elected. People, we hold, are more or less the same everywhere, they just express themselves according to the culture they find themselves in. Our superficial differences shouldn’t blind us to our essential similarities.

Now in drawing a parallel between the two events I’m not suggesting in any way that the situation between the two countries is similar, nor that support for violent, right-wing extremism is anywhere near the same level in the US as in Pakistan or other parts of the ‘Islamic world’. What I am saying is that severe intolerance leads to the same ends, wherever it’s ugly head surfaces. Those who do have power have a clear duty to discourage it, not just in terms of actions such as this, but on an emotional level. Of course, Sarah Palin wouldn’t have wanted this to happen and her condolences are sincere. Yet her notion of targeting individuals based upon their commitments may well have played some part here. As a popular political leader, she needs to be very careful what she says and how she says it. Her freedom of speech implies a responsibility to use it well. When large groups of people are whipped up into a frenzy, some of them are bound to spin out of control and this can even happen in a relatively developed, stable country, as we know only too well.

Writing these actions off as the bizarre acts of lone madmen simply because they just weren’t directly tied to a larger group just won’t do it. People act according to the encouragements of their environment. The context they are taking place in is one with countless smaller, un-newsworthy exchanges, such as have stained the ticker-tape of humanity’s history for generations. We need to be encouraging people to change within themselves.

So lets’s put our faith in democracy as a way of finding the best in the mix of qualities that make up the human race. Lets’ expose extremism before it grows in popularity and becomes an even more dangerous phenomenon. To enforce one’s views on another is an act of violence, whatever the cultural context. They hope we will be intimidated and run away scared. Yet there are actually more of us than of them, though we should always remember that ultimately there is no ‘us’ and ‘them’, whether it be the case of countries or of individuals. The only real revolution starts within every one of us. If we want a better world, we have to change ourselves first of all.

>In Response to the Situation for Iraqi Christians in Post-War Iraq

>This really is a heart-rending issue, so I decided to comment on it…

First of all, our prayers go out to them, our brothers in faith in a land of terrible spiritual darkness and political uncertainty. Only God can truly provide peace of mind and safety, through his influences on the world. Yet, even as humans, we have a big part to play in this.

It’s clear to me that, however unfairly, the association of the Christians with the ‘regime change’ operation, along with others who actually helped, such as translators, is a large part of the reason they are being singled out like this. Whilst I don’t hold with Islam being a tolerant religion, based upon it’s history of being quite different, in other times and places such discrimination has also happened because of the assumed ‘guilt of association’, which is a toxic thing to begin with. It’s a horrible shock to see, but it is something that humans have been capable of for a long time. We need reasonable solutions to make sure people are safe.
Bush and Co. should never have invaded unless they were sure they could produce a stable, secular government in a short time. Still, such a government, made by Iraqis for Iraqis is the only hope that this sort of thing, which doesn’t tend to happen so much in stable countries, becomes a thing of the past.

Radical groups flourish in anarchy and removing not just Saddam Hussein, but also the Baath party administrators, police and army, pretty much ensured this anarchistic situation, which Iraq is still climbing out of. He was actually putting the brakes on Islamic radicalism, as it was a threat to him too.

It seems to me that evil loves chaos, as it can fulfill it’s darkest fantasies in such a time, with no-one able or even willing to stop them. Good requires a certain amount of order, as it is a constructive force. This should be a lesson to the world about attempts to make things better. They should be careful to see that they create what they really want and ensure the safety of the innocent. It seems like radical Islam is so barbaric, it requires strong governments to control. The unsavoury things such governments do may just be the lesser of two evils compared with setting it free.

Freedom, in short, is closely related to safety. If we can’t guarantee this to the Iraqi Christians in their own land, then they should be granted safe asylum, as a priority, partly because it seems to me almost no-where in the middle East is truly safe for anyone not a Muslim. We can’t just wash our hands of this and hope things get better there. Obama and co has inherited these problems just as much as he inherited the wars that exacerbated them- ironically, as part of their intention was (publicly at least), to create stable, viable, friendly states out of tyranny. Whether this ‘lead to gold’ alchemy can work is a philosophical point to those living under the effects of it.

Well, that’s my two cents on the situation, anyway. Right now north Korea is hogging the headlines, but not only will these issues not go away, we should also urgently study them, to see what lessons can be learnt if we do take part in other regime changes, such as the North Korean problem. In such a case, we shouldn’t just fire everyone working for Li’l Kim, as they might actually be decent individuals just doing a job, essential for rebuilding the country. We should be realistic and avoid radical actions. That way, more reasonable people are likely to come to the fore in the aftermath. Your means define your ends, not the other way around.

>Why did Germany Lose World War 2

> The simplist answer to this is that they were in the wrong- goodness was destined, somehow, to triumph against even the most seemingly unsurmountable evils.

Ultimately, the main reason for his downfall and that of the regime was their evil nature. Whatever dark forces helped him to build up that tremendous army so quickly and hypnotically transfix a whole nation were no match for the powers of goodness.

Had he been more sane, kept calculating rather than act impulsively, surely without defeating many of his enemies, he could have reached an understanding and maintained a limited ‘Reich’ that would have been too costly to invade. A more restrained Hitler would have been a terrible adversary, holding enough forces in reserve to make D-Day too costly to carry out.

We are lucky, in fact that he was so closely identified with evil that forces we would call good galvanised themselves to take care of the problem, however great the cost. For evil is craziness, a misunderstanding of the way reality actually is and a failure to understand the cause and effect relationships that will make it’s intentions impossible to realise. History’s purest yet expression of evil called forth the purest forces of good to oppose it. For me, it’s as clear cut as history gets.

Just sticking to the conventional, historical factors, (though I think whatever had happened, Hitler’s craziness would have gotten in the way), I can identify several main reasons-

1) Underestimating the Russians with Barbarossa. Russia is known as an ‘unconquerable’ nation due to the harsh winter and stubborn people, who could unite against an aggressor like nothing else. By not capturing Moscow as a priority and trying to fight on without preparations for the winter, Hitler was being extremely unrealistic.

2) The lack of enough intelligent propaganda leveled at conquered nations. Although this would go straight against Hitler’s twisted world view, presenting themselves as a liberating army to conquered people could have won them valuable allies. In many cases, there were great opportunities here- many people would be happy to be freed from the Soviet Union, or for that matter, from the European Empires they lived in. Yet with great cruelty, the Nazis created new enemies in many places, rather than take the route of ‘empire building’ through flattery that had worked so well for others.

3) Underestimating Britain. In this, I mean the geographic factors of the channel as much as the people’s resolve and technological ingenuity. In fact, it seems obvious to me that Hitler held out the hope that Britain would join him as a somewhat ‘fellow Aryan nation’, so long as their empire was preserved. Yet such thinking went clearly against that of the British public and was made all the more impossible by the targeting of British cities (even if German cities had themselves been targeted). Hitler’s fantasies were not shared and he for long refused to believe it.

4) I put this in order of historical eventuality, not importance, but the declaration of war on the US was a foolish mistake. No doubt the mistaken idea that a prosperous democracy is ‘soft’ lay behind this, but America’s commitment and vast resources were (and still are) unprecedented. That said, had he left them tied up with Japan they might well have hesitated to be drawn into a ‘European problem’ and restricted themselves to arming friendly countries like Britain for years. Again, we can see Hitler’s craziness at work.

5) At heart we have the arrogance and lack of diplomacy at the heart of the Nazi movement, but there was the lack of seriousness in seeking and co-ordinating with Allies. Italy was possibly worse than useless. Spain wasn’t brought in and Japan given to fits of fanaticism that couldn’t be sustained by her natural resources the way Russia’s behaviour was. Fascism was thankfully a flash in the pan (I hope), but a good reason for this was the lack of co-ordination. Attacking Russia in unison, for example, would have made more sense than Japan bringing America into the fray.

6) Antisemitism and lunatic racial theories. This meant that not only in conquered countries, but even from the German population itself, many opportunities were missed. Genius scientists like Einstein went to work for the allies, though presumably if Hitler had kept his personal feelings to himself, he would have had their assistance, though of course this all goes quite against the very essence of the lunatic ideas he entertained. Thinking your own race is superior is one thing. Thinking that entitles you to turn others into hard-labour slaves is another and apart from the immorality involved, it resulted in an inefficient use of labour, resulting in a poorer economy than otherwise possible.

6) Misapplication of technology. Germany had some of the world’s best scientists and it is well known that they pioneered dive bombers, submarines, jet aircraft and even ballistic missiles, but the problem with these projects is that they lead to complex and expensive designs that were hard to mass produce as needed. When coupled with an irrationally rushed desire to ‘take on the world’, they just couldn’t be produced fast enough.

7) Hitler refusing to listen to other’s advice. Of course, the achilles heel to the whole project, aside from it being despotic and therefor inherently short-lived, was the leader’s arrogance and pig-headedness. If he had simply admitted to himself he needed advice from others, it would all have been more sustainable, especially as regards strategic decisions.

I think I’ll stop there, as I’m left with the distinct impression that underlying all of this is Hitler’s arrogance, on a personal level amongst others. The whole movement was embodies by him, much more than say, Communism, which has it’s own texts and various manifestations. Aside from being, as said, crazy, I think he was a frustrated artist at heart- his chosen creation the ‘greater Germany’. For me, this explains the unrealistic decision making (which, I think we should remember, did at times work, just not very reliably) and the ‘all or nothing’ approach.

Fortunately, the Germany we have today is one of the most progressive and forward looking nations on the planet, yet somewhat ‘denationalised’ by the EU and eclipsed by greater powers like the US. I like to think we can respect what their soldiers went through and even went beyond their usual limits to achieve, without in any way condoning the whole enterprise.

I think by seeing into the Abyss and not wanting any more of it, Germany and Japan made a great effort to make a fresh start in rebuilding their countries. So, despite losing the war, I think they made a better job of learning that war’s a bad thing than the winners did. Existing under American protection, though, it’s been a bit easier for them to be pacifists.

>The End of Iraqi Combat Operations- Yet When Will They Have Their Lives Back?

>The wonderful Bill Blum says about the Iraqis

“( they) have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives .”