Can we all agree just for
one moment
that bombing countries back into the stone age isn't a very
enlightened way
of ending conflicts? We already know it actually has the opposite
effect: it prolongs them. Families, friends, and supporters of those
killed in conflicts inevitably harbor resentment and grief and
suffering long after the conflicts have ended, waiting for the right
time to extract their revenge on their erstwhile tormentors with new
and sudden strikes, to which history will attest are fiendishly
difficult to predict and protect against. Such revenge strikes don't
have to deploy even a fraction of the firepower which was foisted on
them initially, to extract painful, terrible retributions on those who
killed their family, friends, and supporters a long, long time ago.
The underlying narrative touting "cutting off the head of
the snake"
as a preventative strategy, is unsustainable. For everyone. Cutting
off the head of
one snake
achieves very little except to clear
the way
for
the snake's
successor(s).
Snakes
have
a way
of making
baby snakes.
When a
snake's
head is cut off, its babies and offspring remember. Then, at times and
in places of their choosing, they will extract revenge for their fallen
family, friends, and supporters, ensuring the conflict continues for
generations to come. The conflict is then no longer about issues to be
resolved. It has now morphed into maintaining the status
quo, driven and excused by terrifyingly childish logic like
"You started it! You hit back first!", straight out of
some bizarre Monty Python skit.
That's what conflict looks like in a "you or me" world. Living in a
"you or me" world extracts an enormous cost: to
the planet
and to its resources, to the environment, and to we
the people.
Proponents of living in a "you or me" world are
committed
to what separates us, to what divides us, to what keeps us apart, never
fully comprehending that the borders and barriers of a "you or me"
world are artificial, arbitrary, and capricous, never fully
comprehending the "you or me" world
paradigm
is an entirely conjured up, artificial, and man-made survival scenario.
Unless and until we see through, phase out, and stop living by the
rules of a "you or me" world, and instead begin living by the rules of
a "you and me" world, the conflicts we see in
the world
today are simply never ever going to end, no matter who or which side
considers
themselves to be in the right, justified, or ordained / chosen /
favored by
God
to prevail.
In contrast with a "you or me" world, what I mean by a "you and me"
world is not state-controlled communism. Rather, it describes a
context
for
a world
in which the possibility of having life work for everyone
with no one and nothing left out, is a known, attractive, and viable
option. Neither does it imply a "Robin Hood" politic of
taking from those who have, and giving it to those who don't have. It
implies those who know ie those steeped in the possibility
of
a world
that works for everyone with no one and nothing left out, making
available technologies and opportunities so that those who don't know
and don't have, learn how to develop what they need, and are supported
in doing so rather than being left out - as if doing so poses some kind
of nefarious threat.
"Cutting off the head of
the snake",
a euphemism for dealing with one's enemies by assassinating
their leaders,
only works if retribution and revenge are ruled out. The likelihood of
an army ignoring the assassination of its
leaders
is slim. And the odds of
its leaders
coming up with
the idea
of a "you and me" world as conflict resolution, is also unlikely
(if they could, they would have done so already). What
Werner's work
has been
quietly
setting up around
the world
are conversations*
between lifelong enemies in which the possibility of
a "you and me" world suddenly, dramatically becomes the
obvious
way to go.
